1921-03-07

[Stage Direction]
Copies of the Canada-West Indies Trade Agreement, 1920.-Sir George Foster.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 20, to incorporate The Mayo Valley Railway, Limited.-Mr. Thompson (Yukon).
Bill No. 21, respecting The Oshawa Railway Company.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 22, respecting The Thousand Islands Railway Company.-Mr. Smith.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. ROBB (Chateauguay-Hun-tingdon) :: I desire to direct the attention of the Government, and of the Finance Minister (Sir Henry Drayton) in particular, to a statement sent out by one of the larger New York banks to its Canadian correspondents, and by them passed along to their branches throughout Canada, intimating that the New York hank has information that the Canadian Government will, within a very short time, increase the customs duties by adding 30 per cent to the already existing duties.
I am sure that if this information is not well-founded, the Government and the Finance Minister will see the importance of at once giving it a flat denial; otherwise, it will stimulate imports that are not immediately needed. On the other hand, if it is well-founded, someone has been indiscreet.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) :: I thank the hon. member for bringing the matter to my attention. This is the very first I have heard of it. My hon. friend is well aware that it would be entirely improper for us to make any declarations on the subject matter of the report one way or the other, at the present time. I may say, however, that the imposition of an additional 30 per cent is not even being considered.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOHN H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough) : I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to the provisions of the Audit Act which require that a copy of the Auditor General's reports shall be laid on the Table, within fifteen days after the opening of the session, and to ask why the Act has not been complied with this session.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I shall have very great pleasure in looking into the matter immediately.



CENSUS OFFICIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouata) :: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture when we may expect the official list of the Chief Census officers for the districts in my riding.


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Minister of Agriculture) :: That matter comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce now, not the Department of Agriculture.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Then I will put the question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Right Hon.   S@: I think the lists are already published, with the exception of the province of Quebec and the latter will be ready in a day or two, if not already published. I will send my hon. friend a copy.



MACKENZIE BASIN OIL REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. H. A. MACKIE (East Edmonton) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to a matter of great importance and urgency. Under an Order in Council passed in January, the oil regulations governing Mackenzie Basin district were suspended. Under another Order in Council-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I trust that the hon. member does not propose at this stage to make a speech as on a matter of urgency. If he desires to submit a question to the Government, of an urgent nature, and of general application, he might perhaps be in order, but not in making a speech.


Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton) :: I cannot
"very well put my question before stating the facts in connection with the case. However, I might start with the question, and then give the explanation. I will put it this way: When will it be possible for the Government to issue leases for oil in the Northwest Territories, having regard to the statement in the last Order in Council passed by the Government?


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister):: The hon. member was good
enough to intimate to me this morning that he would ask this question, and I have sought since to get in touch with the Minister of the Interior so as to procure the desired information, but without success. I will have an answer for my hon. friend to-morrow.



GERMAN REPARATION-ALLIED TROOPS' MOVEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: 
Arthur Meighen: I am justified in saying that
generally the Government is kept informed by secret despatch of proceedings in connection with the difficulties between the Allied Powers and Germany. Definite information of the nature of that stated by the hon. member has not reached the Government; consequently there is nothing further than this that I can say.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 3, to incorporate The Canadian Bar Association.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 4, respecting The Dominion Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Euler.
Bill No. 5, to incorporate Fidelity Company of Canada.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 6, to incorporate The General Synod of the Church of England in Canada.-Mr. Cronyn.
Bill No. 7, respecting The Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company. -Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 14, respecting Gilmour and Hughson, Limited.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 15, to incorporate North American Trust Company of Canada.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 16, respecting "Les Reverends Peres Oblats de Marie Immaculee des Ter-ritoires du Nord-Ouest."

Mr. Mackie (Edmonton).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ALFRED ERNEST FRIPP (Ottawa) moved the second reading of Bill No. 8, respecting The James MacLaren Company, Limited.-Mr. Fontaine.
Mr. BUREAU:: Before the motion carries, may I submit that it might be well to refer this Bill to the Law Clerk of the House for the purpose of ascertaining to which committee it ought properly to be referred? I see they are asking leave to build railway terminals and telegraph lines, and to do other things that come more within the jurisdiction of the Railway Committee, and I think that the matter might be referred back to the Law Clerk for his advice.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It would be quite competent for the committee to do that in the case of a private bill in which there are provisions that might be referred to another standing committee of the House. It may however be as well to let the motion stand.
Motion stands.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Is the Government aware that the Rev. Canon Scott is alleged to have stated in Calgary on the 14th of October, 1920, that thousands of lives of Canadian soldiers have been lost through the defects of the Ross rifle, and that he was asking for an inquiry?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to hold such an inquiry?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	The Government has no information on the subject of Canon Scott's alleged statements other than some newspaper reports based very largely upon misinformation.
2.	No request has been received for an enquiry regarding Canon Scott's alleged statements.


ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Is it true that a great numbers of public documents and publications have been recently burned or sold for almost nothing?
2.	If so, what are the said documents and publications, at what date were they burned or sold, and if sold, to whom?
3.	Under whose orders were the said documents or publications burned or sold?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to hold an inquiry into this matter?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The subject
of the above question is under investigation by His Honour Colin George Snider, Judge, of the County Court of the County of Wentworth, in the province of Ontario, under a Commission of Inquiry dated the 27th of December, 1920, authorizing him to investigate into and report upon the circumstances under which certain publications were delivered by the Distribution Branch of the Government Printing and Stationery Office to Messrs. Florence & Son, the contractors for the collection of waste paper, and the destruction thereof.


BOARD OF COMMERCE-TOTAL COST
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: What has been the total cost to the Government for the Board of Commerce, from its institution up to date?


Arthur Meighen: $140,412.97.


C.P.R. IN UNITED STATES-DOMINION GOVERNMENT NOTES
*Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the Government aware that the notes of the Dominion of Canada are not taken even at a discount, in the offices of the Canadian
Pacific Railway in Detroit, and at other points in the United States?
2.	If so, what action, if any, does the Government intend to take in this regard?


Hon. Mr. REID (Grenville) :: 1.	The Government have no such information.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


SHIPBUILDING AT VICTORIA
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	How many wooden ships have been built or are being built at Victoria, British Columbia, on which the Government has advanced or will advance sums of money?
2.	What is the name of the Company building said ships?
3.	What is or will be the dead weight tonnage
of said ships?
4.	What amount of money has the Government advanced to said builders, and what further amount will be advanced?
5.	Under what authority or what statute is said amount being paid, advanced or loaned to said builders or owners of said ships?
6.	On what date was said arrangement between the builders or owners and the Government entered into?
7.	What are the names of the owners of said ships?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Four.
2.	Cholberg Shipyard.
3.	Calculated dead weight cargo capacity 2,400 tons.
4.	Advanced to date, $600,000.
5.	Appropriation Act 1920-item 549- Supplementary Estimates fiscal year ending March 31, 1921.
6.	Agreement between Owners and builders, January 19th, 1920.
Agreement between Owners and the Government, March 16th, 1920.
7.	Victoria (B.C.) Shipowners, Limited.


NEXT GOVERNOR GENERAL-SUGGESTED APPOINTMENT OF LORD BURNHAM
Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Have any representations been made to the Government, or to any member thereof, by Lord Northcliffe, or by his secretary, Sir Campbell Stuart, relative to the appointment of the next Governor General of Canada?
2.	If so, in whose behalf were such representations made and will the correspondence, if any, be brought down?
3.	Has the appointment of Lord Burnham as Governor General been suggested or urged? If so, is there any correspondence on the subject and will it be laid before Parliament?
Sir Henry Drayton:	.
1.	No information.
2.	and 3. answered by No. 1.


DEPARTMENTAL MOVING PICTURES
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Does the Department of Trade and Commerce produce moving pictures?

2l If so, toy whom are these pictures distributed to the theatres?
3.	What general arrangements are made with the distributing company or person?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Motion pictures are produced by the Exhibits and Publicity Bureau in the Department of Trade and Commerce.
2.	These pictures are distributed twice
a month to moving picture theatres in Canada by the Canadian Uiversal Film Company, Ltd., of Toronto. In England these pictures are distributed by Jury's Imperial Pictures, Ltd. In South Africa, arrangements have been made for distribution through the African Films Trust, Ltd. In China, distribution is being made through China Theatres, Ltd. In other countries non-theatrical distribution is arranged through the offices of the various Canadian Government Trade Commissioners.	-
3.	Arrangements have been made with the Canadian Universal Company, Ltd., and Jury's Imperial Pictures, Ltd., by the Department of Trade and Commerce, on a percentage basis. In South Africa and China films are being distributed free.


PISH PROM U. S.-DRAWBACK
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Has the Government refunded to the East Coast Fisheries of the United iStates, an amount of $14,500 paid by them as duty on fish exported from the United States to Canada?
2.	If so, why?


Hon. Mr. WIGMORE:: 1.	No refund of duty has been paid to the East Coast Fisheries on fish exported from the United States to Canada but drawback of $14,720.30 was allowed, representing 99 per cent, of the Customs duties paid on imported fresh fish cured in Canada by the East Coast Fishing Company and exported.
2.	Payment made under general drawback regulations established by Order in Council 20th August, 1904, under authority of Section 288 of the Customs Act.


WELLAND CANAL-SAND
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Who has the contract for supplying sand to the various contractors engaged in construction work on the new Welland Ship Canal?
2.. WThat are the names of the parties interested in the sand contract?
3.	What is the date of the sand contract?
4.	Since the said contract was made has it been varied in any way? If so, toy what authority, and in what respect?
5.	Was the said contract let toy tender? If not, why?
6.	Are the moneys earned under the contract payable under power of attorney to any bank? If so, what is the name of said bank?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	National Sand and Material Co., Welland, Ont.
2.	Their contract bears signatures: D. Dick, Jr., President; L. M. Stapf, Sec.-Treasurer.
3.	Sept. 16th, 1919, August 20th, 1920 Supplement Agreement.
4.	Yes. By Order-in-Council of June 18, 1920, an additional charge of 27c per cu. yd. was allowed for extra work in transferring sand from bins at points of delivery to stock piles or contractors' cars.
5.	Yes; public tenders were called for.
6.	Yes. Imperial Bank of Canada, Welland, Ont.


OPERATION OF LUXURY TAX
*Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	(a) When did the Luxury Tax go into operation and (to) on what date did it cease to operate?
2i. What was the total cost of bringing into effect and operating the luxury tax?
3.	(a) How many metal perforators for cancelling stamps were purchased by the Government and (to) what was their total cost?
4.	(a) From whom were these metal perforators purchased and (b) on what terms?
5.	Were tenders called for said perforators? If not, why?
6.	Have these perforators been left with the retail merchants, or what has become of them?


Hon. Mr. WIGMORE:: 1.	(a) May 19th, 1920. (b) On and after December 20th, 1920.
2.	As the officers are employed for the collection of other Excise Taxes, it is not possible to separate the cost in such manner as to state what portion of said cost relates to the Luxury Tax.
3.	(a) 49,965. (b) $77,695.75.
4.	(a) W. H. Banfield & Sons, Ltd., Toronto. (b) F.O.B. Factory Toronto. Net cash 30 days from date of invoice. Price first 25,000-$2.00 each; on quantity in excess of 25,000, $1.55 each.
5.	Yes.
6.	As these perforators have simply been loaned to retail merchants, Collectors have been instructed to recall them.
CIVIL SERVICE REORGANIZATION-ASSISTANCE TO GRIFFENHAGEN & CO.


Mr. FRIPP:: 1.	In connection with the work of reorganization of the Post Office and Customs Departments by Griffenhagen and Associates, how many accountants, clerks, or other employees of the public service of Canada were detailed to assist said firm in the work of reorganization?
2.	Was the assistance so rendered by officials of the different departments to Griffenhagen and Associates given in the country's time, or in the private time of those so employed?
3.	If in the country's time, has a corresponding deduction been made from the $10,000 per

month. remuneration, which it was agreed to pay to Griffenhagen and Associates?
4.	If any public servants assisting Griffen-hagen and Associates were required to work outside regular office hours, will'the Government see that Griffenhagen and Associates, before they leave the country, pay these the said public servants for their services?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	The present staff of departmental assistants who have been assigned for full time consists of twenty-two people whose average period of service has been hut 59 days each. Seven others are at present assigned for part-time service. These have given to date (February 19, 1921), an average service of 31 days each. At various times during the work other persons than those indicated above were assigned temporarily, their services later being discontinued. The total number of these temporary assignments was 19, and the average period of such service was 17 days.
2.	These employees were assigned from the various departments to assist in the reorganization work, under the direction of the special staff employed by the Council sub-committee. Such employees retained their connection with the department from which they were assigned as before.
3.	The assistants detailed to this work retained their departmental status. The firm employed gave certain professional service as provided in the contract made with them. The work of departmental assistants was an extra, beyond that service, for which the Government received the direct benefit, through expediting the work and abbreviating the period for which it would be necessary to retain special outside service.
4.	See answer to Question 3.
RECRUITS FOR MOUNTED POLICE *Mr. CAHILL:
1.	(a) Did Commissioner Perry, of the Northwest Mounted Police, go to England since last session of Parliament? (b) If so, by whom was he authorized to go and for what purpose?
2.	(a) Did Commissioner Perry travel in company with a late member of the Government? (b) If so, which one?
3.	Were recruits for the Northwest Mounted Police brought from the British Isles as a result of Commissioner Perry's visit or following said visit?
4.	(a) If so, how many? (b) And where have they been stationed?
5.	What efforts, if any, were made to obtain men in Canada for the positions given to the recruits brought from Great Britain?
6.	What was the total cost of Commissioner Perry's trip?
7.	(a) What was the total cost of bringing the recruits from Great Britain to Canada? (b) and stationing them at different points in Canada?
8. (a) Is there any difference between the Mounted Police force as now constituted and a standing army? (b) If so, what is the difference?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) Authority of Prime Minister and President of Privy Council.
2.	(a) Was passenger on same boat, (b) Hon. Mr. Rowell.
3.	(a) Yes.
4.	(a) 125 recruits, (b) 99 stationed at Regina depot; 26 stationed at Ottawa depot.
5.	Officers commanding districts throughout the Dominion were instructed to secure suitable men. Posters were printed and distributed.
6.	$1,146.48.
7.	(a) Expenses from England to port of debarkation in Canada (Quebec), nil. (b) Expenses of recruits from Quebec to Ottawa and Regina, $5,370.91. Expenses of recruits from point of enlistment in Canada to depot recruiting base are defrayed from public funds.
8.	(a) Yes. (b) The Mounted Police is a purely civil force and organized for the purpose of maintaining civil law and order.


MOUNTED POLICE-WITHDRAWALS- DAMAGE TO BUILDINGS
*Mr. CAHILL:: 1.	How many members of the Dominion Police Force have ceased their connection with It since the force was emerged with the Royal Northwest Mounted Police?
2.	(a) How many ex-members of the Dominion Police Force are in receipt of a monetary allowance, and (b) what is the total annual amount of such allowance?
3.	How many buildings occupied or used for any purpose by the members of the Mounted Police Force have been destroyed or damaged by fire or otherwise during the last nine months?
4.	(a) 'Were investigations held? (b) If so, in how many instances and what was the result in each case?
5.	What was the total amount of such damage and by whom will it be paid?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1. Thirty. For reasons as follows:
Purchased discharge	12
Dismissed	2
Unsuitable	1
Invalided	2
Pensioned	4
Died	2
Time expired	7
Total	30
Two of the above time-expired men have since re-engaged.
2.	(a) Four (b) $2,980.83.
3.	Six buildings.
4.	(a) Yes. (b) Fairmont Barracks, Vancouver, damaged. Cause: Originated

in attic over No. 2 barrack room. Origin of fire given in opinion of board "that it probably started from the result of the extreme hot weather assisted by some cause or causes unknown." Building, government property; approximate loss, $18,000.
Riding School, Regina. Cause:	Unknown, probably incendiary origin. Government building; approximate loss, $15,200.
Stables, Brandon. Cause: Investigated by Board of Mounted Police Officers and Fire Commissioner of Provincial Government. This fire broke out on the second floor of the building used for poultry exhibits by the Winter Fair Board immediately above the Mounted Police stables. The board is of opinion that this fire was caused through defective wiring coming into contact with rubbish stored in the place before mentioned. This was a rented building, therefore, vthe Government not liable. Three smaller detachment fires occurred at Hazelton, B.C., Broadview, Sask., and Gliechen, Alta. They were all rented buildings, therefore, Government not liable. All three fires were due to accidental causes.
5.	Damage to government buildings at Vancouver and Regina approximately $44,200, chargeable to public funds.


LEAGUE OP NATIONS-CANADA'S REPRESENTATIVES
*Mr. MARCILE:: [DOT]
1.	How many persons were employed by Canada in her representation in the League of Nations?
2.	What are the respective salaries?
3.	What is the total amount Canada is called upon to pay her representatives owing to the fact that she belongs to the League of Nations?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: There is a little doubt in my mind as to what the hon. gentleman wishes in the information he asks for, but taking it for granted that it is with regard to the representation of Canada at the first assembly of the League the information is as follows:
1.	Canada was represented by the Rt. Hon. Sir George E. Foster, the Rt. Hon. Charles J. Doherty, and Hon. N. W. Rowell as delegates to the assembly; Mr. Loring Christie as legal expert; Messrs. Payne, Ahern and Robinson, secretaries.
2.	The expenses of the delegates were paid in addition to the regular departmental salaries.
3.	Nothing.


BOARD OP COMMERCE
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Is the Board of Commerce still in existence?

2.	If so, who are the present members of the Board ?
3.	When were they appointed, upon whose recommendation, and at what respective salaries?
4.	How many enquiries have been held by the Board since last Session?
5.	Where were they held and what were the decisions or ruling's rendered by the Board?


Hon. Mr. WIGMORE:: 1.	The Board of Commerce under the Statute still exists but the organization has been reduced to the following: the secretary, one stenographer and one messenger.
2.	None.
3.	Answered by reply to No. 2.
4.	Four.
5.	As follows:	Montreal, Sugar.-Decision permitting increase in price. Ottawa, Sugar.-Decision reducing price and limiting buying and selling of sugar. Toronto, Milk.-Enquiry re price of milk; decision reserved;-Reduction in price effected subsequently. Toronto, Boots and Shoes.-Order restraining dealers from certain practices deemed to be unfair.
Enquiries were in progress at various points with a view to formal hearing by the Board, which ceased on resignation of Commissioners.


IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION-DUTIES PAID
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	What were the total values of imports for home consumption of each of the following classes of goods during the calendar year 1920, *-Agricultural and vegetable products; animals and their products ; vegetables; agricultural implements ; mowing machines; lawn mowers; and harvesters (self binding)?
2.	What was the amount of duty collected on each of the above classes?


Hon. Mr. WIGMORE:: 1 and 2.
Imports
entered of	Duty
consumption Collected Value
Agricultural and vegetable products mainly foods (This group includes vegetables) .	.	.
Vegetable	
Agricultural and vegetable products other than foods. . Animals and their
products	
Agricultural Implements (including mowing machines, lawn mowers and harvesters selfbinding)	
Mowing machines. .
Lawn mowers	
Harvesters, self-binding


$183,673,789 4,095,420 92,223,738 77,622,632 25,259,071 80,432 60,959 1,006,361 $19,848,308 49 686,500 75 18,231,382 82 6,254,991 66 1,901,259 68 10,054 08 19,783 10 125,795 24  APPROPRIATION FOR PRIVATE SHIP CONSTRUCTION
Mr. EULER:: 1.	What portion if any of the sum of $20,000,000 appropriated by the Parliament of Canada in 1920 for the construction of ships "by private shipbuilding: concerns, has been used for that purpose?
2.	If the fund has not been drawn upon, what is the reason?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	No such sum was appropriated. Chap. 70, 10-11 Geo. V. provided for endorsements of notes not exceeding $20,000,000.
2.	Some applications have been received but none recommended.


DESTRUCTION OF STATUTES OF CANADA PLATES
*Mr. HALLADAY:: 1.	Did either Messrs. Bailey or Wolffe, who were engaged in the work of reorganizing the Printing Bureau, as reprentatives of the Arthur Young Company, of Chicago, issue instructions for the destruction of the plates from which the Statutes of Canada are printed?
2.	On whose authority did Messrs. Bailey or Wolffe adopt this course?
3.	Was the concurrence of the King's Printer asked before this step was taken?
4.	When was such destruction carried out?
5.	How many years' Statutes are covered by this action?
6.	Are the originals of all the Statutes since Confederation still in the possession of Parliament, or were they destroyed in the fire of February 3, 1916?
7.	How much will it cost to re-set and electrotype the Statutes, the plates of which have been destroyed, should it be found necessary to reprint them?
8.	What officer of Parliament could verify as to the accuracy of the Statutes so reprinted?
9.	If either Messrs. Bailey or Wolffe, as representatives of the Arthur Young Company, acted in the manner indicated without the authority of the Civil Service Commission or any member of the Government, will an action for damages lie against the Arthur Young Company for the unwarranted course pursued by their employees?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The subject of the above question is under investigation by His Honour Colin George Snider, Judge of the County Court of the County of Wentworth, in the province of Ontario, under a Commission of Inquiry dated the 27th of December, 1920, amended and extended so as to authorize the said Commissioner to inquire into the particulars of all material and equipment purchased, sold or otherwise disposed of, in or from the Printing Bureau since 1st January, 1919.
PRINTING	BUREAU-DOCUMENTS AND


MACHINES DESTROYED
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Is the Government aware that, since the Classification has been made by the: experts,
documents printed at the Printing Bureau have been destroyed on account of their being defective, and that the reprinting of same caused a loss of over $100,000?
2.	Is the Government aware that machines said to be in perfectly good condition, which had been in use at the Printing Bureau, have been sold for scrap iron?
3.	If so, what sum was realized by such sale?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1. No.
2 and 3. The subject of these questions is under investigation hy His Honour Colin George Snider, Judge of the County Court of the County of Wentworth, in the province of Ontario, under a Commission of Inquiry dated the 27th of December, 1920, amended and extended so as to authorize the said Commissioner to inquire into the particulars of all material and equipment purchased, sold or otherwise disposed of, in or from the Printing Bureau since 1st January, 1919.


REMISSION OF MOTORBUS TAX
Mr. BOURASSA:: Are motorbuses subject to the tax of fifteen per cent as per paragraph "A", section 4 of The Special War Revenue Act, 1915?


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: No. Tax was remitted by the Order in Council on and from 20th December, 1920.


PARLIAMENT FOR SOUTHERN IRELAND
*Mr. POWER:: 1.	Has the Ministry received any communication from Sir Hamar Greenwood or from the British Government inviting some of His Majesty's Canadian Ministers to take part in the inauguration of a Parliament for Southern Ireland?
2.	If so, has the Government accepted the invitation? '


Arthur Meighen: The answer to the first question is, No. The second question is answered by the answer to No. 1.


PERROT ISLAND BRIDGES
*Mr. LAFORTUNE:: Has the Government any intention of assisting in the construction of the bridges on Perrot island for which undertaking the Quebec Government has promised to vote, during this present session, the sum of $600,000?


Hon. Mr. McCURDY:: As this is a work entirely within the Province, the Federal Government has no liability for the construction of these bridges and therefore is not called upon to make any monetary contribution but has agreed to assist to the extent of providing engineering services to assist in preparing plans and estimates for the Isle Perrot Bridges Commission.


ST. ROMUALD-POST OFFICE
Joseph Boutin Bourassa: Is it the intention of the Government to construct at St. Romuald, Lfrvis County, a post
office replacing the present office?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Not at present.


MURRAY BAY-PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the Government received petitions from residents of Little River St. Frangois, lie aux Coudres, Murray Bay (St. Etienne de la Malbaie) and Point au Pic, St. FidSle and St. Sim4on, requesting the construction of certain public works or buildings at these places?
2.	If so, has the Government considered the advisability of proceeding with the said works?
3.	If so, when are said works to begin?
4.	If not, why?


Hon. Mr. McCURDY:: 1.	Petitions were received for the construction of a post office at Pointe a Pic, a wharf at Murray Bay (St. Etienne de Malbaie), and improvements to the wharf at St. Fidele and repairs to the wharf at St. Simeon.
2,	3 and 4. Information will be given when the Estimates pre submitted to Parliament.


MONTREAL-POST OFFICE ETC.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Has an inquiry recently been asked for with regard to the administration in Montreal district of (a) Post Office; (b) Inland Revenue Office; (c) Customs Office, and (d) Public Works Office?
2.	If so, at whose request were the said inquiries made?
3.	What reasons were given for said inquiry?
4.	Has there been any correspondence between the parties interested and the department in question in these inquiries? If so, will the Government produce such correspondence?
5.	Have inquiries in each case been made upon request?
6.	If not, why were they made?


Right Hon.   S@: Post Office Department:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. There has been no investigation in so far as complaints against the Montreal Post Office are concerned, the only investigation being in connection with the re-organization which is being undertaken throughout the Postal Service generally.
Inland Revenue and Customs Office:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. No information.
Public Works:
1.	No.
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6. Answered by No. 1.


GRAND TRUNK EQUIPMENT TRUST CERTIFICATES
Mr. McMASTER:: 1.	During the fiscal year 1920-21, was there borrowed by>
the Grand Trunk Railway on equipment trust certificates, the sum of $12,000,000?
2.	If so, did the Government guarantee these certificates?
3.	If not, were they issued with the full consent and authority of the Government and is the Government in any way responsible for their payment?
4.	Did the commission and cost of distribution for this $12,000,000 worth of certificates cost $1,002,000?
5.	Is 6J per cent the rate of interest being paid on these certificates?
6.	Is the interest and principal payable in New York?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Issued by authority of Government, but Government in no way responsible as they are a mortgage on the rolling stock purchased.
4.	Certificates were sold at 91.65 and realized $10,998,000 in New York funds.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes.


CANADIAN NORTHERN BONDS
Mr. McMASTER:: 1.	Did the Government on December 1, 1920, guarantee Canadian Northern Railway Bonds to the amount of $25,000,000?
2.	Was $950,000 paid as a commission foi selling these bonds in New York?
3.	In addition to this commission what other expenses were incurred?
4.	Is 7 per cent the rate of interest being charged on this loan?
5.	Is the interest and principal payable in New York?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes,
2.	No; bonds were sold at $96.20; net proceeds $24,050,000 New York funds.
3.	Expense accounts not yet rendered.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.


GRAND TRUNK BONDS
Mr. McMASTER:: 1.	Did the Government on October 1, 1920, guarantee Grand Trunk Railway bonds to the extent of $25,000,000?
2.	After the commission and other expenses
had been paid did the railway company receive only $23,595,205.31 for the sale of these bonds?	/
3.	Is 7 per cent the rate* of interest being paid on these bonds?
4.	Is the principal and interest payable in New York?


Hon. Mr. REID (Grenville) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	These bonds were sold at 94a and realized $23,595,205.31 in New York funds.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.


Mr. McMASTER:: 1.	Did the Canadian Northern Railway
Company or any of its subsidiary companies issue certificates on May 1,	1920, to the
amount of $15,000,000?
2.	If so, what is the name of the subsidiary company issuing these certificates?
3.	Were these certificates or bonds guaranteed by the Government?
'	4. If not, why not?
5.	Did the commission for selling this $15,000,000 worth of bonds, and the expenses connected therewith amount to $706,568.85?
6.	What were the net proceeds received from this loan after commission and expenses had been paid?
7.	What rate of interest is being paid on these certificates?
8.	Is the interest and principal payable in New York?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Canadian National Rolling Stock Company.
3.	No.
4.	Not necessary as they are a direct charge on the rolling stock on which they were issued.
5.	Noj the bonds were sold at 95 and realized $14,250,000 in New York funds.
6.	Net proceeds after deducting expenses, $16,568.85, $14,233,431.15.
7.	Seven per cent.
8.	Yes.


RURAL MAIL DELIVERY
Mr. DESAULNIERS:: 1.	How many new rural mail delivery routes were established during 1920?
2.	In what municipalities were said routes put into force?


Rt. Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Fifteen.
2.	St. Andrews, Antigonish and Guys-* borough, N.S.; Londonderry, Colchester,
N.S.; Yarmouth, Yarmouth & dare, N.S.; St. Stephen and St. James, Charlotte, N.B.; Beresford, Gloucester, N.B.; Mount Murray, Charlevoix & Montmorency, Que.; Low, Wright, Que.; Clinton, Lincoln, Ont.; Medonte, Simcoe, E.R., Ont.; Hallam, Al-goma, E.R., Ont.; Hallam and May, Al-goma, E.R., Ont.; Rosedale, Neepawa, Man., (2 routes) ; Artland, Battleford, Sask. (2 routes).


UNAUTHORIZED INSURANCE COMPANIES-SPECIAL TAX
Mr. RINFRET:: Has the Government any intention of levying a special tax on unauthorized insurance companies, which are known as mutual companies?


Right Hon.   S@: No information in advance of Budget Speech or legislation, if any.


CAPTAIN SEFEROVITCH
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Is the Government aware of the conduct oi Captain Seferovitch, Serbian Consul at Montreal in making publi: accusations against Canadian citizens by means of letters in the press?
2.	If so, does it intend to take any action in the matter ?
3.	Have any representations been made to the Government with reference to the personal record of the said Captain Seferovitch?


Arthur Meighen: 1 and 2. The attention of the Government has not been drawn to any letters in the press making accusations against Canadian citizens, and therefore the question of taking action as suggested has not been considered.
3.	When the appointment of Captain Seferovitch as Consul of Serbia was proposed the usual inquiries were made as to his suitability for the position, and the fact that His Majesty's Exequatur was issued to enable him to take up his duties is evidence of the satisfactory outcome of such inquiries.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

Mr. DEVLIN:: 1.	Has the Governor in Council prohibited the export of gold coin, gold bullion or fine gold bars, from the Dominion of Canada, and if so, Is such prohibition still in force, and under what authoriity, and how and when was such prohibition declared, made or published?
2.	If the Governor in Council has prohibited the export of gpld coin, gold bullion or fine gold bars from the Dominion of Canada, was such prohibition absolute, or was such gold coin, gold bullion or fine gold bars, notwithstanding such prohibition as may have been made in respect thereof, still subject to export in certain cases, or by .virtue of permits or licenses, secured for such purposes?
3.	Has the Governor in Council, or the Government of the Dominion of Canada, or any minister or official or officer thereof, issued or granted permits or licenses permitting or authorizing the export of gold coin, gold bullion or fine gold bars from the Dominion of Canada, by any person, bank, company or corporation since the 1st of January, 1918 ; and if so, to what persons or persons, bank or

banks, company or companies, corporation or corporations were such permits or licenses to export gold coin, gold bullion or fine gold bars granted or issued Since the 1st of January, 1918, and what were the respective dates of such permits or licenses?
4.	To what person, bank, company or corporation was each of suoh permits and licenses issued or granted, and when, and what amounts of gold coin, gold bullion or fine, gold bars were authorized to be exported by each of such permits and licenses; and what amount of gold coin, gold bullion or fine gold bars has actually been exported under each of such permits and licenses ?
5.	Did such permits or licenses as may have been issued for the export of gold coin, gold bullion or fine gold bars or the applications therefor specify to what country or countries the gold coin, gold bullion or fine gold bars,
* thereby authorized to be exported, were to be sent, and if so, what country or countries were so mentioned or specified in each of said permits or licenses, and In each application for such permits or licenses?
6.	Has any charge or charges been made by the Governor in Council, by the Government of the Dominion of Canada or by any minister, official or officer thereof, for permits or licenses to export gold coin, gold bullion or fine gold bars from the Dominion of Canada, and if so, what charge or charges; and have the charge or charges so made depended to any extent, and If so, to what extent, upon the amount o? gold coin, gold bullion or fine gold bars that the respective permits or licenses authorized to be exported?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	W'hat was the total number of enlistments in the Canadian Expeditionary Force (including men who enlisted under the Military Service Act) from the outbreak of the war to Armstice day?
2.	Whait number of the said men served in
(a)	Canada: (b) England, and (c) France?
3.	What was the total number of examinations of pensioners conducted by the Board of Pension Commissioners from June, 1920, to date?
4.	What was the number of reductions in pensions made and the total amount thereof?
5.	What has been the cost of the administration of the Board of Pension Commissioners for the whole period of the Board's existence?
6.	What number of employees (a) male, and
(b)	female, were employed by the said Board, and how many of the male employees saw service in France?
7.	What number of men employed in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment saw service dn France, and what has been the total cost of administration of this department to date?
8.	How many men are in the service of the Soldier's Settlement Board and the Vocational Training Board, and what number of them saw service in France?


Mr. VIEN:: 1.	How many bushels of Canadian grain have been carried from Winnipeg eastwards during 1919 and how many in 1920?
2,	What quantity of Canadian grown grain exported abroad has been shipped through Canadian ports, from what ports and what quantity in each case, during 1919 and 1920?
[Mr. DevlinJ
3.	What quantity of Canadian grown grain has been exported through American ports during 1919 and 1920, from what ports and what quantity through each port?
4.	What quantity of Canadian grown grain has been carried from the West to the East during 1919 and 1920-(a) by the C.P.R., (b) by the G.T.R., (c) by the Government Railways?
5.	What is the rate now prevailing on the transportation of grain in Canada (a) on the Government Railways, (b) on the various other railways?


Mr. McGIBBON (Argenteuil) :: 1.	What was the total number of employees in the Civil Service in the year 1913?
2.	What was the total number of employees in the Civil Service in the year 1920?


Mr. DUFF:: 1. In what countries have commercial agencies been established by the Federal Government?
2: What are the names of said agents, their previous address, present a'ddress, previous business experience, date of appointment, and respective salaries?


Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	In regard to the Federal Civil Service what is understood to be comprised by the'words (a) Inside Service; (b) Outside Service.
2.	How many employees are there at present in the (a) Inside Service; (b) Outside Service?


Mr. STEELE:: 1.	What was the number of Civil Servants in the inside Service in each Department of the Government on December 31, 1920?
2.	How many days absence, exclusive of regular holidays were recorded in each Department for the year 1920?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What was the cost of each of the byelections held since last session in the Dominion of Cartada for the House of Commons?
2.	How many members of the Government have taken part in same and what are their names?
3.	Where did they work or speak?
4.	Was there any Government private car or motor used in connection with said by-elections by the members of the Government or their representatives ?
5.	If so, how many and for what special election?
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS. Mr. ROBB for Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:
For a statement showing:	(a) the total
amount collected by the Government on packing houses and cold storage plants, (1) under the law of excess profits, (2) under the Order in Council of 9th of March, 1918, fixing the profits of such houses and cold storage plants; (b) the names of these firms who have paid; (c) the dates of said payments; (d) the amount of each payment respectively.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is adopted, I desire to point out that there is no objection whatever to complying with

the motion in so far as it ought to be complied with. There are, however, provisions in the different Acts which look towards keeping confidential information which is confidentially obtained. So far as I can see there is no reason why the return should not be made showing the total amount collected by the Government on packing houses and cold storage plants; showing also how much is collected under the law of excess profits; and showing also how much is collected under the Order in Council of March 9, 1918. The matter which is open to question and objection is the disclosing names of particular firms and the amounts of their particular business. I think the hon. member will probably agree with me.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. McMaster for the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Centre Vancouver) :: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect
this debate Would be resumed so early and I have not before me some of the memoranda that I had intended to use in dealing with the subject.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member might
further adjourn the debate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If it would be all
right, Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to move the adjournment of the debate again.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The order will stand
by consent.



FRENCH TREATY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBB for Mr. ARCHAMBAULT moved:
For a copy of the new treaty of commerce between France and Canada.
Arthur Meighen: I desire to inform the hon.
member that the treaty has not yet been dealt with by the other parties to it sufficiently far to warrant us in publishing a copy. When the treaty is ready for publication we shall be glad to furnish my hon. friend with a copy.


James Alexander Robb: We might let the motion
stand until the return of the hon. member. (Mr. Archambault.)


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Motion stands.



INSPECTION OF GAS AND GAS METERS

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Rt. Hon. Sir George Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce) Bill No. 13 to amend and consolidate the Acts respecting the Inpection of Gas and Gas Meters, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-definitions:
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: This Bill is both to amend and to consolidate different Acts. Perhaps my hon. friend would direct the attention of the Committee to any amending features when they are not apparent from the Bill itself.


George Green Foster: I will do that as we pass along. Some amendments are introduced, and consolidation has taken place. It was thought better to consolidate the old Acts and make the amendments at the same time so that it would be all under the one cover.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-regulations:
George Green Foster: I move that
clause 3 be amended by adding thereto, as paragraph (g), the following words: "as to pressure under which gas is to be supplied." That is at present in the old Act, but it was omitted in the printing of the new.


Jacques Bureau: In the old Act I find these words, immediately following those which my hon. friend has just moved to insert as paragraph (g):
In the case of inodorous gas, to require the addition of such substances as he deems necessary in order to communicate the odor.


George Green Foster: In the old Act there is such a clause as my hon. friend has mentioned; I do not know just why it has been left out of this Bill. My officer is on his way here; we will let the clause stand until we get an explanation from him.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section stands.
On section 4-units of measure:
Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton) :: Does
paragraph 2 have reference to natural gas as supplied to consumers in different parts in Canada?


George Green Foster: The Bill deals
with both natural and manufactured gas.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What provision is made for the testing of natural gas?


George Green Foster: We shall come
to that a little later.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-certificate of registration:
George Green Foster: This is a new clause so far as inspection of gas is concerned, but old as regards electricity. It is considered necessary to apply to the supplying of gas the inspection provision which has worked so well with regard to electrical supply. The certificates are furnished free of charge, and are for the period of a year. They have a statistical value as well, because you know then who are engaged in the work of supplying gas and are able to keep the business under supervision, which you could not do if you did not have the system of registration.


Mr. PARENT:: Will this legislation be retroactive? Will it apply to companies already in existence?


George Green Foster: It has no retroactive effect.


Jacques Bureau: But it must apply to companies already in existence, for it says:
No distribution system for supplying: gas to any purchaser shall he operated until the contractor has obtained from the minister a certificate of registration for such system.


George Green Foster: It is not retroactive; it does not operate until the Bill becomes law, but when the Bill does become law the certificate will be asked for from that date.


Jacques Bureau: Take the case of Three Rivers, where the system of gas distribution has been in operation for some time and under very varying conditions. We have had natural gas and we have had artificial gas, and I do not think that anyone in the town could make any accurate report on the system, because it is not known where the pipes are. If the provision has reference to the manner in which the gas is manufactured, whether with coal or with sawdust, well and good.


George Green Foster: All it requires is that the company or person operating the distribution system shall get a certificate of registration. You cannot carry on your inspection system unless you know what persons or companies are operating the different systems.


Jacques Bureau: That is, every* gas company must register with the department?


George Green Foster: Yes.
Mr. MARCIL.: For a couple of months last winter the gas supplied in Montreal was very bad and complaints poured into the City Hall every day. The company replied that the coal was inferior. Is there in this Bill anything to prevent a repetition of that state of affairs?


George Green Foster: I do not quite know what brought about that state of affairs. The department has to do with the inspection of gas; I do not think it has anything to do with looking out for supplies of coal or the finances of a company or anything of that kind. This is merely to see that the gas which is distributed, is measured under proper regulations, so that the consumer shall get his benefit and the contractor or supplier shall be under the regulations and rules of the department.


Mr. MAR  OIL@: Did the department receive any complaints from Montreal last winter in regard to the quality of the gas supplied and, if so, did the department take any action? The gas gave out a very bad smell; in fact, in some places we had to cease using the gas entirely on account of its inferior quality. Is any power taken in this Bill to prevent a repetition of that ktate of affairs?


George Green Foster: The impurity of gases and the bad quality of gases come directly under the department and we have penalties and fines which may be imposed. The matter is now being attended to in the courts.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: We have a number of companies distributing natural gas in cities and towns in the western part of Ontario, and at times the gas that is supplied is mixed with a large quantity of air. While the gas meters are supplying the people who own the gas wells with the means of taxing the consumer, on the other hand, the consumer is compelled to pay for a very inferior quality of gas. I do not see in the Bill any provision whereby the consumer is sufficiently protected in that regard. The same thing would apply in connection with gas supplied to cities, as has been stated by my hon. friend (Mr. Marcil).


George Green Foster: I am informed that natural gas is not purified by any steps which are taken by the department and it is very difficult to do that.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What protection is there in the Bill for the consumer of natural gas?


George Green Foster: That seems to be a matter between the contractor and the purchaser. Natural gas is sold as it comes from the soil, and the question whether it is or is not good, and of a quality to fulfil the expectations of the purchaser must, to a large extent, be a matter of bargain between the purchaser and the supplier.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am sorry indeed there is not in the Bill some provision whereby consumers of natural gas are protected against the men who supply the gas. While it is true that at certain periods of the year, the gas furnished to consumers in western Ontario in particular is of very good quality, yet when there is a shortage of that gas, the general impression is that a large proportion of the material that is furnished through the meters is air which is allowed to be pumped into the pipe lines. I should like to see some protection of the consumer of natural gas, if that is at all possible.


Mr. McKENZIE:: What effect would the presence of air in the pipes have on gas? I do not know anything about natural gas, but I know something about coal gas.
Mr. ARMSTRONG, (Lambton East): It simply passes through the meter and is registered as gas, although it is merely air which, when it is placed under your furnace or in your stove, does not produce very much heat.


George Green Foster: The former legislation which we are amending today made no provision for that, and it is not considered that it is really possible to do so under our Constitution.


Mr. CAHILL:: What is required by the department from the contractor in order that he may receive a certificate?


George Green Foster: He must give the information that he is a distributor of gas, the number of his meters, and a general idea as to his system of distribution.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will the minister be good enough to request his officials to investigate this matter in order to see if it is not possible to devise some legislation whereby consumers of natural gas will be sufficiently protected ?


George Green Foster: I shall be very glad to do that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why is an annual certificate required? Business men, as a rule, like to have as little interference as possible, and if they receive a certificate when things are going along well, with no complaints from the inspector, why should they be kept under observation every year and compelled to take out a new certificate?


George Green Foster: There is not much trouble in getting or in giving a certificate. The questions which have to be answered are very few and simple; but the department wants to know quite as much as those who go out of the business as the new ones who come into it. Therefore, if you have the expiry of the certificate at the end of each year, you know exactly how many have gone out of the business; and if you require a certificate from everyone doing business, you know all the new ones who come in. In that way your record is complete, and the interference with the business or the trouble given to the firm or association is practically nil.	.


Georges Parent: There seems to be no particular reason why this matter is not left in the hands of the provinces, because a province can grant a charter to a company to distribute gas or electricity. I should like to know if there is any special reason why the federal authorities are interfering in this matter.


George Green Foster: This has been the practice since Confederation, since the first establishment of these two branches I can see very evident advantages which would come from having a capable general supervisory power, and it would be fair to assume, I think, that you would get a better supervisory power from the federal department which devotes its time to the whole Dominion, and can bring about uniformity of work and uniform protection' for the citizens.


Georges Parent: If this condition has existed since Confederation, I do not see whj the section is marked "New."


George Green Foster: Weights and
Measures certainly come under the federal jurisdiction, and this is simply a device for measuring or weighing gas.


Frank S. Cahill: What would be the penalty for failing to apply for this certificate?


George Green Foster: We will come
to that section later.


Mr. MURPHY:: My right hon. friend in answer to a question put by my hon.



friend (Mr. Cahill) or my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) rather indicated that the obtaining of this certificate of registration was largely a matter of form. If that be the fact, I would point out that the language of the section itself indicates that it goes somewhat beyond that. It says:
No distribution system for supplying gas to any purchaser shall be operated until the contractor has obtained from the minister a certificate of registration for such system.
Assuming that an application was made and the certificate refused, obviously under . this section no person could proceed to distribute under any particular system. That being obvious, what I would like to know is, what is the practical application of the section? Is it optional with the department to refuse such a certificate, or has the department some standard up to which all systems must measure or what regulations in the department have to be complied with before such certificate can be issued? Obviously, if this section were to be strictly interpreted, a person might be prohibited from doing business altogether.


George Green Foster: That is very
true. It is really one of the objects of the Act, that inefficient systems which are not scientific in their nature, or not correct in their working, shall not be operated to the disadvantage of consumers, who have to pay according to the meter readings. It is for the purpose of protecting the consumers from inefficient or deficient methods of distribution. The department has to satisfy itself that the system is reasonably efficient for distribution, and that under that particular system the purchaser of gas will get the service that is reasonably due.


Charles Murphy: May I inquire if there are certain fixed standards or regulations in the department that are well known to people engaged in this business?


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: I am informed by the officer that the purpose of this section is mainly statistical, so that the department shall know who are and who are not doing business. The certificates are generally granted as a matter of course when application is made, and the information obtained is filed.


Charles Murphy: Having regard to the
explanation just given by my right hon. friend, does he not think that the language of this section is a little too rigid?


George Green Foster: It merely asks that a certificate be granted.


Charles Murphy: But it leaves it optional with the department to refuse to grant the certificate, and without the certificate a person cannot carry on business.


George Green Foster: I am told that exactly the same provision has been in the Electrical Inspection Act, and that no trouble has ever been found.


Jacques Bureau: I would suggest that if the object of this section is merely that the department shall know who are and who are not doing business in Canada, it ought to be changed, because at present it provides that no system shall be operated until the contractor has first obtained a certificate. That is too drastic, as my hon. friend (Mr. Murphy) says. If the object of the section is mainly statistical, why not draft the clause to read that every contractor supplying gas shall obtain a certificate under a penalty; but do not stop the system just because he does not get a certificate. Under this section, as it stands, if a man in Three Rivers, or in Ottawa, or anywhere else, did not get a certificate, some over-zealous officer in the department could come down and close his plant. That is too drastic. If we are going to legislate as to the quality of gas and provide remedies where a bad quality of gas is being distributed, let us have another clause drafted. But this one exposes even the consumer to hardship.


George Green Foster: It is not the
intention of this clause to interfere with systems already existing and distributing gas, but that every new company shall get a certificate of registration, and that thereafter these certificates shall be supplied yearly in order that a complete statistical record may be kept of what companies are doing business.


Jacques Bureau: If that is the object, we ought to say "No distribution system for supplying gas hereafter installed or established," and so on. As the section reads now, all existing distributing systems are included, and the supply of gas could be cut off if a certificate was not obtained.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: This clause covers a question that has been a very troublesome one in some parts of the country during the past winter, where companies had threatened to shut off the gas supply to some of their patrons, who had objected to the very great increase in the price of gas charged by the company in violation of contracts made with certain towns. I was not

aware that it was necessary for the companies to receive a certificate of registration annually from the department, but that being the case, I can see the danger of having the supply entirely cut off in case the certificate is refused. A great many people in western Ontario use this natural gas for heating their houses, and if a license is not to be issued, then some means should be provided to see that the supply he maintained so that these people shall not suffer seriously as a result. Many people have no other heating facilities than natural gas. With regard to the question of the impurities of natural gas, the difficulty in certain towns in western Ontario during the past winter has been that companies have refused to purify the gas as they had contracted to do. As this Bill is endeavouring to regulate the gas companies, some provision should be embodied in it to ensure the purity of the gas, and also that, in the event of a certificate being refused a company, some means should be provided to see that the supply is maintained and that the consumer does not suffer.


George Green Foster: Possibly my
hon. friend did not hear the slight conversation that passed between another hon. gentleman and myself with reference to natural gas, in the course of which I stated that none of our legislation preceding this had undertaken to look after the purification of natural gas. It is a very difficult^ thing to do, and I promised my hon. friend to have my officers look into the matter to see whether there was any possible method of doing it. The matter will have to rest there for the present. The difficulties which my hon. friend has stated I have seen discussed in the newspapers and in representations made from various quarters, as to the poor quality of natural gas. I must say that we -have not yet legislated in that direction; heretofore the department has considered it so difficult that it has not undertaken to do that work.


Donald Sutherland: I was particularly interested in the fact that these companies require an annual license, and I was anxious to know what would happen if that certificate were not granted and a company were unable to do business, especially in the middle of winter when their customers depend almost entirely on the supply of natural gas. If the company were refused this certificate, what machinery is there to insure the supply to those
39i
who depend upon this gas for their heating purposes?


George Green Foster: The purpose
of this clause is merely to get statistics into the hands of the department. It is not its purpose at all to refuse a certificate because of the quality of the gas, the defects of the system, or anything of that kind. ' The purpose of this clause, I repeat, is simply statistical.


Charles Murphy: In view of what my
hon. friend says and obviously intends to do, would it not be better to amend the wording of the section so as to provide that every distribution system shall file with the department so and so, whatever the regulations are, upon which filing the certificates shall issue?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: The objection to
clause 5 as urged on this side of the House as well as on the other, seems to be the apprehension that it will stop the operation of gas companies altogether, with some embarrassment to those who are receiving gas. I would suggest that the minister change the clause so as to read:
Every system supplying gas to any purchaser shall obtain from the minister a certificate of registration for such system, such certificate to expire on the 31st day of March each year.
That would compel them to get a certificate while it would not interfere with their operations. Section 13 says the contractor is penalized if he does not get the certificate.


George Green Foster: If he does not get his registered certificate.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Under clause 5,
which says that no distribution system for supplying gas "shall be operated until the contractor has obtained from the minister a certificate of registration," prevents him from operating if he fails to get the certificate. I do not think it is the intention of the minister to interfere with the operations of these gas concerns, but only to subject them to a penalty for failure to obtain the certificates. I think therefore that the clause is open to amendment.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend is right in the statement that it is not the intention to stop the operation of any gas system by reason of failure to obtain the certificate. The purpose of the clause is simply to compel the contractor to obtain his certificate, so that you may know that he is at work. The penalty in clause 13 is imposed for failure to get registration.

The certificate of registration is really given as a matter of course.


Jacques Bureau: I think clause 5 ought to be amended in accordance with the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie).


George Green Foster: Section 5 is not intended to prevent operation at all; it merely requires registration.


Jacques Bureau: If it has any object it must be to scare the contractor. As it stands, however, it seems to me that failure to get the certificate precludes operation.


George Green Foster: The registered certificate is required solely for statistical purposes.


Jacques Bureau: Section 13 states that failure to obtain the certificate is punishable by fine of $10 for each day during which such failure continues. That is quite plain. If it is not the intention to prevent operations on this account, then I say that section 5 must be amended; because as it stands it distinctly prevents any work being done:	It says that no distribution system "shall" be operated until certificate is obtained.


George Green Foster: Perhaps it
might meet the difficulty and be perfectly clear if the section read:
Every distribution system for supplying- gas to any purchaser shall obtain from the minister a certificate of registration for such system.


Mr. PEDLOW:: What is the particular reason for requiring an annual application for registration? Once a gas company has registered would that not be quite sufficient? These concerns are not like some small affair; the contractors cannot put them on their backs and walk off with them.


George Green Foster: It would be rather difficult for them to put the gas system into their pockets and go away with them, but still a company might go out of business, and it is well to have the registration complete in the office. Besides, it entails no hardship.


The CHAIRMAN:: The clause now
reads:
Every distribution system for supplying gas to any purchaser shall first obtain from the minister a certificate of registration for such system.


George Green Foster: The word
"first" should not be there.


Mr. NESBITT:: Supposing a contractor is supplying gas and at the end of the year he fails to obtain a certificate?


George Green Foster: He gets his
certificate as a matter of course, as long as he has a system in operation.
Section as amended agreed to.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Bureau now
moves that the committee refer to clause 3 of the Bill. Shall clause 3 as amended carry?


Jacques Bureau: I renew my objections.


George Green Foster: The hon. gentleman's point is provided for in section 19 which we will come to later.


Charles Murphy: In connection with this clause may I ask my right hon. friend if provision is made elsewhere in the Bill for the speedy publication of these Orders in Council that are passed? The Bill is of such general application and of such importance, that it seems to me necessary that the different Orders in Council which may be passed under this section should become speedily known.


George Green Foster: Copies of the Orders in Council are distributed immediately to each company direct from the office.


Charles Murphy: May it not be a matter of general interest that the Orders in Council should be published in the Canada Gazette, for instance, within a certain time after the Orders are passed?


George Green Foster: The Order in
Council affects the contractor and he gets a copy of it. The departmental officer thinks that no good purpose would be gained by carrying out my friend's suggestion. It would only be another cause of expense and we are so economical these days.


Jacques Bureau: I do not think section 19, to which my right hon. friend referred, meets the case. It does not appear to me that the provisions are such as to give sufficient protection to the consumer. '


George Green Foster: I understand the question has been raised as to whether the power to act in this matter belongs to the Dominion, or whether it is a question of provincial and municipal regulation.


Jacques Bureau: I do not see that there would be any danger to the public interest if we were to preserve the language of the

old Act. It has been in effect since 1910 and I do not think its authority has ever been disputed.


George Green Foster: I am informed that on two or three occasions cases have been taken to Court and we have lost them.


Jacques Bureau: I would like the right hon. gentleman to cite me one of those cases in respect to gas.
Section as amended agreed to.
On Section 6-right of access by contractor to premises where gas is used.


Jacques Bureau: Paragraph (c) gives
the contractor the power to enter the premises of a purchaser for the purpose of changing or removing any piping, et cetera. That seems to me to be a kind of arbitrary power to confer.


George Green Foster: But the contractor will be responsible for repairs.


Jacques Bureau: That is all very well
but some times a person would prefer not to be deprived of gas even if he obtained damages. It is provided that the contractor shall be responsible for any damage done, but he can take the piping away and leave the consumer without gas-in fact he may do it summarily. If it were provided that it might be done for certain reasons, or under certain conditions it would afford better protection for the consumer.


George Green Foster: The clause as introduced here is new only as relates to gas inspection. It has been in force for the last twenty years in the inspection of electricity and no difficulty has been experienced under it.


Jacques Bureau: The two systems are
not the same in character and therefore you cannot compare them. Although they give the same results, that is to say they yield power, heat and light, the two systems are absolutely different.


George Green Foster: I know they are different, but in both cases contractor has to go inside the house to install the apparatus.


Jacques Bureau: But I maintain that the two cases are not on all fours. There is nothing in the Act concerning electricity that gives a contractor power to go into another person's house and rip up floors in order to put in wiring. Unless it is a matter of contract as between the parties,
the company, in the case of electricity stops at the outside wall and provides you with the current there.


George Green Foster: I do not think my hon. friend's fears are justified as to what injury may be done.


Jacques Bureau: I have not got any
fears.


George Green Foster: Experience is the best test in a matter of this kind.


Jacques Bureau: I do not believe in waiting until the horse is stolen before locking the stable.


George Green Foster: If a pipe gets out of order and the contractor is responsible he ought to have the right of entry and the right to make good the damage which exists inside and prevents the system from working.


Jacques Bureau: To say that the contractor can enter a house and remove any piping is a little hard.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Bureau moves: that clause 6 be amended by striking out the words "or removing" in the fortieth line. Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. McDERMAND:: Does the provision in clause (c) mean that the inspector may enter a gas field and remove any of the regulators and so stop the pressure of gas to the public?


George Green Foster: If the owner of the building or house con\es to the conclusion that he will not take any more gas, the contractor will have the right to enter and remove his fixtures.


Jacques Bureau: He has already at law full remedy to get back what belongs to him. I do not see why we should give him this drastic power of entering and ripping out pipes and meters.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Is not an hon. member of this group entitled to have his question answered so that he can hear the. answer?


Sydney Smith McDermand: Will the inspector have the right to enter a private building and remove the piping or interfere with a line supplying a village with gas by removing a meter or cutting a pipe without consulting the consumer or consumers?


George Green Foster: It is the contractor.


Sydney Smith McDermand: Would he have that right without giving notice to the public?

The reason I ask this question is because in my immediate vicinity last fall a whole village was cut off by a certain gas company removing the pressure ipeter, and the people were in darkness and suffered a good deal of inconvenience in consequence; in fact, the lighthouses along the lake were out.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I submit that this right should be left entirely to the contract or agreement that the selling of gas makes with the purchaser. They have their private contract, and one of its terms should be that the contractor has the right to go in and remove his property from any building, or to go in and repair that property; but I think it is rather arbitrary for us to make a one-sided contract and give the contractor this unlimited power.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is the Committee
ready for the question? Sir George Foster moves that clause 6 do carry. Mr. Bureau moves an amendment to strike out the words "or removing" in the fortieth line.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Before you put the motion, Mr. Chairman-


Georges Henri Boivin: I am very sorry, but I must remind the hon. member that the motion was put for the' second time. The Committee was asked if it was ready for the question, and no answer came. I am sure the hon. gentleman's remarks will be quite relevant after the motion is put.
Amendment (Mr. Bureau) negatived.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was going to speak on the amendment, Mr. Chairman, but as it has been declared lost I have nothing more to say.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Has the Minister considered-


George Green Foster: If my hon.
friend will allow me? I think we had better be a little careful before we strike this out of the Bill as it has been very carefully prepared by officers who have had this matter under their charge for many years, and they have brought down to the House what they consider is necessary for the proper carrying out of the Act. I have been speaking with the inspector, and if the clause be considered somewhat drastic in its present form, as stated by my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), it might be made perfectly reasonable by the addition of this phrase:
The contractor may at all reasonable hours and with the consent of the purchaser. . .


Jacques Bureau: Since my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. McDermand) has taken the floor I think my case is far stronger. Supposing gas is being supplied to me and to another consumer through a common pipe, and the company wish to cut off his supply by tearing out a piece of pipe not only my house but the house of the man whom they wanted to deprive of gas will be shut off. Why should the contractor come on the premises and tear out the pipe? My hon. friend says that it is the contractor's property. But the contractor is entitled to replevy that property at any time. I think a county court judge is much better equipped to try each particular case than we are to lay down a general law empowering a contractor at any time to enter and remove piping. My right hon. friend may change the wording of the clause, but the removal of the piping is the objectionable feature.


Sydney Smith McDermand: It was the questioi of removal that affected the village oi which I spoke. The company removed tht generator in that case and the whole village was in darkness and subject to the weather. I think the consumer should have certain notice given him before changes or removals are made.


Charles Murphy: Who did it in that case?


Sydney Smith McDermand: The Dominion Gas Company.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The amendment was
declared lost.


Georges Henri Boivin: The amendment to
strike out the words "or removing" from clause (c) was lost, but any other amendment striking out the entire paragraph or amending it in any way except deleting the words "or removing" would. be in order.


Mr. DOHERTY:: It might be pointed out that this section, at all events as I understand it, does not confer on a man the right to remove piping; it is for the purpose of giving him a right to enter the premises.


Jacques Bureau: For what purpose?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Supposing that that man had a lawful right to remove piping. If you strike out the words "or removing", then he would not have the right to enter the premises. The purpose, as I understand it, is_ not to determine whether the contractor has the right to remove any piping, but when he has that right, to determine whether he shall have the right to enter at any reasonable hour for the purpose of exercising his right of removal. I would

suggest that instead of striking out the words "or removing" we insert after "removing" the words, "when lawfully entitled so to do". I should think there would be no objection to adding these words.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Minister will see the difficulty which is there introduced. Who is to decide what is a lawful right?


Charles Joseph Doherty: My own interpretation of the section is that it confers a right to enter, not a right to remove; but where a man has a right to remove, this section gives him a right to enter. Nobody can decide then and there whether or not he has a right to remove; that necessarily would have to be fought out afterwards. Suppose a man had a judgment of the court determining that he had a right to remove, and the occupant barred the door.


Jacques Bureau: He could go to the sheriff.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He might have to go to the sheriff; but why, in cases where the right to remove is not disputed or disputable should there not be a right to enter?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The purposes for
which the contractor may enter are clearly defined in the section. It provides first that he may enter; then it sets forth what he may do after he gets in. Now, if it is objectionable that he should go in and do all these things, we should not allow him to go in. So far as I am familiar with the operations of electric concerns-and they are about the same thing; one supplies light and the other gas-the local Acts give them authority to put up poles, string their wires, and all that sort of thing, but the matter of what happens between the purchaser and the contractor as respects what the contractor shall do in the purchaser's house is the subject of private agreement between them. Perhaps we might well leave it to themselves to make such arrangements as might be thought proper in this regard, instead of making an unilateral contract-telling a contractor what he may do, and offering no protection to the purchaser, the man who owns the house. Then, I think the caption of this section is somewhat deceiving-"Inspection."	If these
things were done by a qualified inspector, I would have no objection, because he would be a good man, interested in both parties. But this is not an inspection; it is conferring power on the owner of the plant to do certain things. I do not quite understand why it comes under the head of "inspection."


Mr. MORPHY:: I agree with the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie).
I cannot help feeling, upon reading the whole section and the caption of it, that whoever drafted the clause intended to make sub-section (c) read this way:
Changing or improving any piping, fittings, meters or other apparatus belonging to the contractor.
That, to my mind, is a reasonable view to take of the section; any other view is quite out of keeping with the rights of the public in dealing with large corporations supplying gas. If, on the other hand, it should be said that my view in this regard is not correct, I would simply fall in with the amendment of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) by adding to it these words: "after three days' notice to the occupant," so that paragraph (c) would read:
changing or removing, when lawfully entitled so to do, after three days' notice to the occupant, any piping, fittings, meters or other apparatus belonging to the contractor.
So that if a person is aggrieved by arbitrary or captious pressure on the part of an incorporated company, amounting, in his opinion, to infringement upon his personal rights, he would have three days within which to apply to the court for an injunction to restrain the removal and thereby get redress before the damage is actually done.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I can hardly agree with my hon. friend. As to what the member for North Cape Breton says about the word "inspection," I may point out that the inspection is by the contractor's inspector, not by the provincial inspector or whoever the province employs. As to the words "removing any piping, fittings, meters" and so on, you have to give the contractor permission to remove piping because if the purchaser has not been paying his bills or for some other reason the contractor thinks it necessary to remove the meter, he could not do so without at the same time removing a certain amount of piping. I do not see how we can refuse to allow the contractor to do what is necessary to the carrying on of his business in a business-like way. He should not be asked to supply gas to people who do not pay for it. I think that the clause, taken with sub-section 2, which makes the company responsible for damage, is all right as it stands, because I do not believe any contractor or supplier of gas is going to remove piping or meters unless such ac-

tion is necessary, because he is not being paid for the gas, or has some other good reasons of that kind. These men are out to do business, just the same as anybody else, and unless they are selling at a loss -and that is not likely-the more gas they can sell the better for them.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should like the attention of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) to what I am about to suggest because I think we have been talking about this under a misapprehension; at least I know I have. This does not purport to give the right of forcible entry. It establishes the fact that a man has a right to go in to do all those things that are enumerated. If I am a tenant in possession and I do not think he has any right to do the things that he proposes to do when he enters my residence, I will simply barricade my door. He will not have any right of forcible entry; to enforce his right of entry, he will have to go to the court, and then we shall thresh out the question whether he has a right to do those things which he says he wants to enter to do. I do not think anybody is exposed to any forcible action, because the' law simply says that the man has a right of entry for certain purposes, and I think we can take it for granted that his right of entry is only subject to his being in a position lawfully to do those things. I do not think anybody suffers any great danger under this clause.


Jacques Bureau: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) knows as well as I do that when a company is getting a charter to supply gas, it is careful to see that everything is put in that is necessary for the protection of its rights. By this clause we are giving a man, who is not under the control of the Federal Government, certain powers as regards his contract with another man who owns a house. If you were saying that the inspector should go in. I would say:	"All
right; this is one of your own officers, and it is up to you to legislate as to your officers". But you say, "The contractor." My right hon. friend says: "What we want by this clause is the right to enter the premises;" but where has the contractor a right to read the meter, except by this section? Where has he a right to take it away, except by this section? My objection is that we step in and say that the contractor shall do certain things. The contractor is not our officer. He may have his charter from the Dominion Government, as is the case with the Ottawa Gas company; he may get it from a provincial legislature, and in his charter all the powers of the contractor

are well defined and enumerated and I think those who look after the contractor are careful, when they ask for a charter, to see that all necessary powers are granted. Why then, should we give additional powrs to a contractor, such as the removal of pipes or entry at any time? Let the inspector go in and bring in the contractor if he pleases, but I object to the contractor or his servant being given the right to enter my house and to remove pipes or to do the other things that are enumerated.
As regards the clause relating to damages, I have only to mention the word "damages" to the Minister of Justice to make him smile. He knows as well as I do that very often when we go before the courts to get damages, the costs of the action exceed the compensation received. I might call that section a section of frivolity, because it does not amount to anything.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think we are going
far beyond the purview of this legislation when we are dealing with property end civil rights. At an early stage of the discussion this afternoon the question was raised as to our right to go into the provinces at all to deal with matters of this kind. The minister quite properly answered that the question of weights and measures comes within the jurisdiction of this Parliament, and consequently we had a right to deal with weights and measures. But clause 6 goes far beyond that; it tells a man who owns a house what shall happen; that a certain contractor may enter his house, and may do certain things. That is dealing with property and civil rights and has nothing to do with weights and measures. If we say that our inspector can go in and examine a house and do what ever is necessary for the purpose of the Bill, I will say that that is incidental to the jurisdiction of weights and measures; but I ask the Minister of Justice; By what authority can we deal in this Bill with property and civil rights? This is a question of property within a province, and we are telling a man he can go in and do practically what he pleases with that property. 1 do not think that comes within the scope of this legislation.


Charles Murphy: Listening to this debate, I felt that the matters covered by this clause are rather trifling and unimportant to be included in a Dominion Act, and I want to supplement what my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) has said by suggesting to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the

Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) that the matter might very well be left to contract between individuals. Would that not be covered in such cases by the ordinary arrangements that are made in regard to matters of this kind, making it unnecessary for us to incorporate it in an Act of Dominion application?


Jacques Bureau: As regards the amendment moved by the Minister of Justice, is the contractor not lawfully entitled to enter when he is given the right of access?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If anybody objects to
my amendment I have no desire to press it. Personally, I do not think it is necessary. I think, that with the exception of the right to enter, this clause does not confer substantial rights on anybody who has not those rights already.


Jacques Bureau: Strike it out.


George Green Foster: As regards the sub-amendment " after three days' notice to the occupants," that might act very badly; gas might be escaping, running all through a house, poisoning everybody, or it might catch fire and burn up the whole place.


Charles Murphy: I am sure, if gas were
escaping, no objection would be raised to the contractor coming in and stopping the leak. What I wish to provide against is an arbitrary entry, when no gas was escaping, in order to take away pipes that are useful, not that are useless.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank S. Cahill: What is the real purpose of this clause in any event? In the first place, every gas company, before it can supply gas will have a franchise from a municipality, and under that franchise it will have rights that should be sufficient for it. I^hy should the Dominion Government be passing this legislation, and particularly this clause, when they have all these rights already under their franchise; and if not, why should we give them rights which the municipal franchise would not give.


George Green Foster: I should like
to consult the officers of the Department before I make a decision, and I therefore move that further consideration of this section be postponed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Section stands.
On section 7-pressure:
Edward Walter Nesbitt: This clause provides
that "The contractor shall from time to
time report to the minister what the minimum service pressure is and shall provide, free of charge, etc., etc." We have had a great deal of trouble in Western Ontario over gas this last year. Some corporations have complained that there is not enough pressure, and others that the gas is poisonous and smells too much, and they have had the provincial Railway Board and a gas inspector up there investigating. There has been a lot of trouble between the municipalities and the gas companies, and my question is: where does the Dominion Government's authority come in, and where does the Provincial Government s authority come in? The same question applies to section 6, which has been allowed to stand. If the two authorities clash, I should like to know exactly where they do clash, because this is a very vexed question up in Western Ontario, and is causing constant rows between the municipalities and the gas companies.


George Green Foster: The purpose of this clause is to put the department in possession of a fact, as to what the pressure really is. We have no power, and this does not give us power, to say what the pressure shall be.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If you have no authority to do anything, what is the good of having the knowledge?


George Green Foster: The knowledge of what the pressure is, is necessary to us in testing the meters, and that is the whole purpose for which this clause exists. The pressure may be high or low, and in order to make an accurate test we have to know just what the pressure is.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Then we have no authority to control the gas companies?


George Green Foster: We cannot say what the pressure shall be.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Or what the supply shall be?


George Green Foster: You have to go to your municipality for that.


Frank S. Cahill: This is a new clause. How have the companies and the authorities been getting along hitherto without it? The minister does not give any good reason why it should be inserted.


George Green Foster: I think the reason I have given is a good one. If we want a piece of information for the purpose of carrying out our work, we ought to be able to get that information.

We are not responsible for the fact of what the pressure is, but we are responsible for testing the meters, and we simply want to get the fact as to the pressure, in order that we may do our work in conformity with that fact.


Frank S. Cahill: Just what is the work of the department?


George Green Foster: The work of the department in so far as this is concerned, is to get information upon which to test the meters. The pressure may be high or it may be low. Now the meter has to be tested according to the pressure, and we simply want to know the fact of what the pressure is. This very same provision has been in force with respect to the inspection of electricity for the very same purpose.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No doubt the minister has a perfect right to test the pressure, because that is incidental to the real purpose of the inspection, but I have very grave doubts whether he has power to compel the contractor to furnish the tools for doing that.
toST GE0RGE FOSTER: It is not the


Mr. COPP:: Has the minister received any information from the gas companies throughout the Dominion as to how this will affect their operations? We have natural gas in the city of Moncton. It is piped seven or eight miles into the city and then distributed. Sometimes the gas has been reported pretty low. Has the minister conferred with the companies who will be affected by this legislation.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend will see that this will not interfere with any company which is piping gas into a city. It merely asks that company: Please be kind enough to tell us what your pressure is, as we want the information in order to test the meters. That does not affect the company's operation.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Except that they have to supply the pipe and facilities for the test.


George Green Foster: That is only a neighbourly thing for them to do.


Arthur Bliss Copp: How will these tests be made, and to what expenses will the companies be put in supplying these facilities? I should like some information on these points.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is the apparatus then. You are saying to the contractor We want to make tests, and we are goinj o make you supply the necessary machinery to make our tests. Now I have very grav< doubts whether you have any right to saj that to any contractor. I have very grave doubts whether you can compel him tc keep extra apparatus for that purpose


George Green Foster: It has always been done m connection with the inspection. Do not put it into their heads that we have no right to do it.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: Is this c ause new? What has been the procedure in the past?


George Green Foster: The meter has to be tested under the existing conditions, and one of those conditions is the amount of the pressure. We want to know just what that pressure is, for without that knowledge we cannot fairly test the meters.


Peter McGibbon: What has been the practice in the past?


George Green Foster: The officer tells me they have simply had to take their chances in testing the meters, and that it has been very unsatisfactory.


George Green Foster: This really means a saving to the companies because, instead of asking them to bring their meters to be inspected at the office of the inspector, our meters are taken to the premises and all the company is asked to do is to connect up a pipe to help the inspector in making the test.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. ,
On section 8-Director.
Mr. ROSS:: This seems to be a radical
departure from the Acts of 1906 and 1910. We seem to be appointing a new' director and new officers, and you are taking great powers to yourselves. You are appointing numerous inspectors and assistants. What is the reason for this change, and what will the additional cost be?


George Green Foster: I am glad to
be able to tell my hon. friend that this does not contemplate, nor does it provide for, the appointment of a single additional officer. It merely gives the names and the powers of officers already at work.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It seems to me that the caption of the clause is rather misleading when read in connection with section 6. Section 6 is headed "Inspection." To my mind it should be headed "Directors' rights

and privileges." Section 8 is headed "Officers" and deals with inspection. The caption should indicate the purport of the clause. Then they would not be misleading the people who wished to understand the law.


George Green Foster: This deals with the appointment of officers.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: For inspection purposes. Sir GEORGE FOSTER:	Yes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: And the one that deals
with directors' right is headed "Inspection".
It seems so abnormally out of place that I thought I would mention it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would draw attention
to sub-clause 4. Does not the Civil Service Act as it now stands provide for this qualifying examination? Why insist on introducing it into this legislation?


George Green Foster: I think the
provisions of the Civil Service Act cover this case, but perhaps it might be just as well to let it stand.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As I understand the
Civil Service Act, all these positions in all departments are filled by examination, and I think it unwise to introduce into this Act or any other Act a special clause with reference to examination.


Frank S. Cahill: Is it not a fact that by
Order in Council the Government can at any time over-ride this provision with regard to examination, as they have done in connection with the census Enumerators and the Purchasing Board?


George Green Foster: I move to
strike out sub-section 4.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the subsection?


George Green Foster: It provides what is already provided under the Civil Service Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have the greatest
objection to striking out anything that has any tendency to remind the Government that there is such a thing as the Civil Service Act, because it should be kept before them continually. They should be reminded of it at every turn of the road. It is bad enough as it is, but if nothing is said in the House or in bills about the Civil Service Act the Governement will forget all about it.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend is quite wrong.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend (Mr. Cahill) has just brought to the attention of the Government the fact that officials under the census regulations have been appointed regardless of the Civil Service Act. I do not quite understand why that should be so. Surely this is a matter that ought to come within the operations of the Act. These officers do Government work of a very important character, and why should not the Government ask the Civil Service Commission to submit to them a list of men in the different counties of Canada capable of doing this work? Other matters of less importance are submitted to the Civil Service Commission, but here was a very large slice of patronage and the Civil Service Commission was put aside. The old Tory machine is renovated and put into running order, and the appointees are absolutely and entirely of the old school. I have had the opportunity of looking at the Halifax papers this morning in which the officers in my own county and others in the province are given, and I can assure my right hon. friend that they will pass the acid test of Toryism of the finest order. In mentioning this I am not finding fault, because if I had power and the Civil Service Act were outmf the way I would do exactly the same thing. But I do object to the camouflage of affirming that there is a Civil Service Act in this country under which we are supposed to select officers through a commission appointed for the purpose, while at the same time we find the Government over-riding that Act. I think the minister at this very stage should define as clearly as he can where the Civil Service Act is in this legislation, so that henceforth we shall know when there is a transgression of that Act.
I should like to have some explanation from the minister. Perhaps it does not come within the scope of this discussion as to why he as one of the ministers of the Crown has ignored-if such is the case-the Civil Service Act in connection with the census. Why should the appointments be made regardless of the provisions of that Act?


George Green Foster: We shall have ample time no doubt on a more fitting occasion to take up that particular question and discuss it. It really has nothing to do with the use of gas or the work of testing meters or anything of that nature. There will be an answer for my hon. friend at the proper time and I hope he will restrain his impatience until then.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: I do not think this clause should be struck out. If we leave

the matter entirely in the hands of the Civil Service Commission they may determine that an examination is not necessary, and may dispense with it in making these appointments. Now, where we are dealing with gas, something which is very essential and at the same time very dangerous, I think there should be the statutory requirement that no persons should be appointed to these positions until they have passed a technical examination. This clause simply makes it obligatory that there shall be a technical examination under the direction of the Civil Service Commission. I do not think it would be wise to leave it in the hands of the Commission to say whether or not there should be a technical examination, or any examination at all, and give the Commission power to make the appointment without deciding' whether the applicants for these positions are techncially qualified to fill them.


Mr. CALDER:: I am inclined to think there is a point in the argument of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Tweedie). As I understand the Civil Service law, appointments to the Civil Service are certified by the Civil Service Commission either with or without examination, the matter being left to their judgment as to whether an examination is necessary or not. It seems to me that in cases of officials of this character there should be an examination.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would suggest to the Minister of Immigration and Colonization this fact: This clause gives the Civil Service Commission absolute power to prescribe the nature of the examination, but it does not state that it shall be of a certain type. It says " such examination to be held under the direction of the Civil Service Commission." I submit the whole thing is covered by the Civil Service Act, and this is a perfectly useless clause.
_ Sir GEORGE FOSTER: There are two sides to that question and I am not sure but that the suggestion of my hon. friend back of me (Mr. Tweedie) should be taken into consideration. It is just possible-
I ^ think it may be more than that-the Civil Service Commission under the powers given to them by the Act may appoint these officers without examination. Now, the purpose of inserting this clause is'-tnat in reference to these officers there shall be an examination provided for by 
the Civil Service Commission, and that they shall be appointed by the Commission only after a technical examination. If that me so, if it is absolutely essential that technical acquirements shall be the basis for the appointment of officers to these positions, and that seems to be the case, the clause should remain. Under the circumstances I will ask that further discussion of the matter be postponed, and the section be held for the time being.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the minister have the right to withdraw his amendment?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I certainly think
that subsection 4 of section 8 is important and should remain. We know that the Civil Service Commission now appoint parties to the public service from year to year without an examination at all, and call such appointments temporary. If it it imperative that no person should be appointed to a position such as is provided for here without passing a technical examination then the section should remain.


Georges Henri Boivin: The amendment is withdrawn, shall the clause carry?


Frank S. Cahill: The minister stated that there were to be no new appointments, and yet the very first clause of the Bill provides for the appointment of a director.


George Green Foster: That is, an officer who is already existent and performing the duties shall be made director, that is all. The statement I made is correct.


Frank S. Cahill: And there is to be no change in the salary?


George Green Foster: No change in the salary and no change in the number of officers.


Georges Parent: Am I right in understanding from the minister that the appointment of a director and inspectors will be made by the Civil Service Commission?


George Green Foster: The existing
Civil Service Act brings the appointment of these officers under the Civil Service Commission. The only point which has been raised is this: the Civil Service Commission may appoint to an office either with or without an examination. The department takes the view that with reference to these officers there must always be a technical examination. That is the reason we

have put this clause in the Act, to make sure that the Civil Service Commission in appointing shall only appoint after an examination of the technical qualifications of the applicants.


Georges Parent: That may be the minister's view but if the section is taken as it is, it will be found to be possible for the Civil Service Commisson to have ten or fifteen men pass an examination and be pronounced qualified for these positions. Section 4 does not say that appointments will be made by the Civil Service Commission.


George Green Foster: The Civil Service Act does that.


Georges Parent: But this section may
supersede the provisions of the Civil Service Act.	.


George Green Foster: The object of
this section is simply to make sure that there shall be a technical examination, which I think is perfectly right.


Frank S. Cahill: Does that mean that the
present officers shall have to take an examination, or is the examination only to apply to new officers that may be appointed from time to time?


George Green Foster: I presume it
applies to new officers only. The present officers are qualified.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would ask the minister if he considers the wording of subsection 3 of section 8 sufficiently definite. We are now framing this Bill, and I think we should make it a little more specific in certain details. The provision to which I have particular reference declares that an officer may at all reasonable hours enter any premises. Now we should define what we consider "reasonable hours" to be and not leave the matter open. The same, or similar, phraseology occurs in section 6. I think we should define what we mean by "reasonable hours," and I would suggest that we say between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.


George Green Foster: There might be something occurring at the other hours to prevent the officer from carrying out the duty. I think my hon. friend will find it very difficult to go further in the matter of definition than is set out in the Bill. Circumstances must determine the hour.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: But there may be two
opinions as to what constitutes "reasonable hours." A moment ago in the discussion of this Bill we had a difference of opinion
upon certain matters, and it is equally possible that there will be a difference of opinion in regard to the present point. I certainly think we should settle details of this kind when we are framing the Bill.


George Green Foster: I do not think we could make the provision more specific than it is.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-meters, etc:
Georges Parent: Will not the provisions of this clause interfere with the ordinary employees of a gas company? By this clause it would seem to me that no inspector outside of the one nominated by the Government, or the Civil Service Commission, would have the right to enter houses and verify the meters, although at the present time the gas companies' employees perform this work.


George Green Foster: We do not interfere with the employees of the company which is furnishing the gas.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Subsection 9 reads:
Within six years from each verification and sealing every meter shall be presented by the owner for re-verification and re-sealing, or for the cancellation of the seal by the inspector.
There is no definition under this Act of what constitutes an owner, but there is a definition of what	constitutes
a contractor-the person who supplies the gas. Invariably the contractors supply the meters, and in my experience they rent those meters and will not sell them. Now, it seems to me from the point of view of public right that the duty under sub-section 5 should be cast upon the contractor, the man who supplies the gas, to provide at his own expense for the re-verification of the meters at that period of time when they should be verified. The word "owner" in used in the subsection. There may be a way of getting around that by the contractor saying he leased the meter, or in some other way he may say that he is not the owner; I cannot say what might happen under the interpretation that might be given to the clause; but I think the word "contractor" should be put into that section specifically and that the duty should be cast upon him of arranging and paying for the re-verification of the meters periodically.


George Green Foster: There are cases in which the contractor or the company does not own the meters, they are owned by the consumers themselves; and this subsection makes it necessary for either owner,

whether it be the consumer or the company, to have the re-verification carried out.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If that is certain, I am . satisfied.


James Hamilton Ross: Under this clause there does not seem to be any protection thrown around the public in regard to when the meter should be verified. In the old Act of 1906 by section 19 it is provided:
No meter shall he stamped which is found by the inspector to register, or capable of being made to register, quantities varying from the true standard measure of gas, more than three per centum in favour of the seller, or four per centum in favour of the consumer.
But there seems to be nothing m this Bill protecting the consumer in that regard. Why was this protection left out?


George Green Foster: I am told that the inspector of the department has the power to order the re-verification of a meter at any time if it is found to be defective, but that all meters under this general clause must be re-verified every six years.


James Hamilton Ross: The minister does not quite get my point. Under the Act of 1906, and also under the later Act of 1910, there are standards set up to protect the public; but under this Bill there is no provision at all in that regard.


George Green Foster: There is a provision in this Bill by which the standard shall be set by Order in Council, and the officer works under that Order in Council.


James Hamilton Ross: Why should it be done by Order in Council now when it has never been done heretofore in that way; why not by statute?


George Green Foster: The reason is that if it is in the Act, every time you changed the standard you would have to enact fresh legislation. These changes of standard take place from time to time, and it is conducive to the best operation that they shall be adopted without loss of time. The same amount of protection is afforded under this Bill, but added protection is given as according to experience we change the fineness of the standard.


James Hamilton Ross: I do not quite follow the minister's explanation. I cannot conceive that the fineness of standard would vary so rapidly that we could not establish a basis in the . statute to protect the consumer. From the fact that the standard established in 1906 was not changed in the Act of 1910, I would assume that the standards do not vary very rapidly, and even if we

had to pass legislation I think the public would be much more satisfied to depend on a statutory provision rather than on an Order in Council which might or might not be passed.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: These gentlemen have a habit of passing Orders in Council.


George Green Foster: The officers of the department think it would be better to have the section remain in its present form.
On section 10-tests in the case of disputed accuracy of meter:


George Green Foster: This is just the same as the old Act, except that it is a little more definitely stated.


James Hamilton Ross: There were many rules in the old Act with respect to testing which I do not find in this Bill. Why were thev left out?


George Green Foster: They will be provided for, as I said before, in regulations passed by Order in Council, and for the same reason.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 16-for not keeping records or permitting inspection of them:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I move that the words "not exceeding" be inserted after the word "of" in the fourth line.


George Green Foster: All right-the penalty not to be less than five dollars.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. McKenzie moves to amend clause 16 by adding after the word "of" in the fourth line thereof, the following words: "of not less than five and not more than,"
so that the clause will read:
shall be liable to a penalty of not less than five and not more than fifty dollars.


Georges Parent: What is to get the bene fit of the penalty, the Crown, or the mar who prosecutes?


George Green Foster: The Crown.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section is amended agreed to.
On section 19-for supplying injurious gas:
Mr. McCOIG:: In the old Act there is a section which has a very important effect on the part of the country from which I come. It provides that:
The supply of gas shall be regular and sufficient.

The old Act distinctly provides that a company shall give a sufficient supply of gas, when they have the gas to give to the consumer. This is omitted from the present Bill, and I think it would be a great mistake to eliminate it from this legislation, because it is telling a company which enjoys all the privileges that many gas companies enjoy, that they shall supply the consumer with a sufficient supply of gas, especially in the cold season of the year when gas is very much required. I do not think the minister should ask us to eliminate such an important section when it means so much to the people of Ontario who are being supplied with natural gas at the present time.


George Green Foster: I am informed that that has been left out of the present Bill because the opinion has been given that we have not the power to enforce it. We might, however, go through with the remaining clauses of the Bill, and then I will leave the Bill in committee and we can take it up again and consider it a little further.


James Hamilton Ross: Clause 19 is not closed so far as the committee is concerned?


George Green Foster: It was not
clause 19 that was particularly referred to. Another point was raised there which my hon. friend (Mr. McCoig) contended was of vital importance, that it was in the old Act and that it was not brought into this. I suggested that, as we had an opinion from the Minister of Justice that we had not powers with reference to that, we could not do that under our powers, that we might pass these other sections, and I would allow the Bill to remain in committee until I had an opportunity of consulting the Minister of Justice with reference to the matter. Then it could he brought up again. I will not ask that the Bill be passed until I have an opportunity of doing that.


James Hamilton Ross: The Bill will be brought up in committee again.


George Green Foster: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 20-for offence specific penalty for which is not provided:
Georges Parent: How does this read with the amendment passed a few minutes ago reducing the minimum penalty to $5?


George Green Foster: This would be a blanket for all the rest. That was a
special penalty for a special case. This will provide for other cases which are not provided for specially.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 19, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I do not know that copies of this Bill have been distributed as yet.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They have been distributed, I understand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would
point out to my right hon. friend that this Bill does not appear to be on the official fyle. Copies of the Bill may be lying on the table, but I do not think hon. members have had an opportunity of perusing the provisions of the Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, I have no
desire to proceed with the Bill if any hon. gentleman thinks he has not had proper opportunity of perusing it, but as I explained the other day, it is a very simple Bill, very easy of apprehension, and I would not anticipate there would be serious objection to it. There are two clauses. Their purpose is to provide that on appeals from the decisions of the Commissioner of Patents, which appeals under the existing law lie to the Exchequer Court, and are brought at the instance of the party interested, the Commissioner of Patents, as representing the Crown and the public interest, shall as matter of right be entitled to be heard before the Exchequer Court, and shall, in the event of the decision of the Exchequer Court reversing the decision of the Commissioner have the right of appeal to the Supreme Court. I may say that until 1913 the only appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents was to the Governor General in Council. At the time that was not considered a suitable means of rectifying any error that the Commissioner might fall into, and in consequence, by an Act passed in that year, the appeal was made to the Exchequer Court instead of to the Governor in Council. That appeal, of course,

was at the instance of the party interested. Though there was no provision in that law for the Commissioner of Patents being represented before the Exchequer Court, as a matter of practice he always has been so represented. My information is that the judge of the Exchequer Court thought it desirable tlhat the other side of the case should be put, and at his suggestion the Commissioner of Patents appeared and defended his view.
That practice has gone on without question until a recent case. In that recent case the decision of the Exchequer Court was favourable to the private party and adverse to the decision of the Commissioner of Patents. The latter, assuming, apparently, from the well-established practice, that he was a proper party in the case made an application for leave to appeal to one of the judges of the Supreme Court. That application was necessary because upon the question arising there was no amount involved, and therefore no sum of $500. The commissioner made his application to the judge for leave to appeal, and the judge presiding declined to grant leave to appeal, taking the position that the Commissioner of Patents was not a party to the case and, therefore, in effect had no standing even before the Exchequer Court, and, of course, no right of appeal to the Supreme Court. Now the purpose of this Bill is simply to convert into a legal right what by practice was recognized as the privilege of the commissioner, to appear before the Exchequer Court to defend his decision. Of course, it was not at all in the interests of the commissioner himself that that right should be recognized, but it was felt that there should be somebody to represent the public interest, to put before the court that public interest and the reasons why in that public interest the decision of the commissioner should be maintained. This present Bill provides simply for that right to the commissioner to appear before the Exchequer Court and uphold the public interest in the matter, and, in the event of the Exchequer Court deciding adversely, to carry the case to appeal, just as the private party has the right to carry the case to appeal. The object, in a word, is to put the public on a footing of equality with the private interest, and I would think there would be general consent that there should be such a provision.


Jacques Bureau: I do not find any
fault with the purpose of this Bill, to give the commissioner the right of appeal

which the private party enjoys, but what I would suggest is this: here is a matter that refers exclusively to the Patent Act, just as Chapter 17 of the Statutes of 1913 which transferred all appeals from the Governor in Council, and even all pending cases, if I remember rightly, to the Exchequer Court, refers exclusively to the Patent Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The object of this Bill is to amend the Exchequer Court Act.


Jacques Bureau: I know, and that is where confusion may arise. The fact of amending the Exchequer Court Act in order to give a certain person mentioned only in the Patent Act, and whose duties are defined by the Patent Act, the right of appeal might embarrass anyone looking up the legislation on the matter. There are always in the Patent Act certain provisions whereby an appeal lies from the decision of the commissioner. Now, why not include the provisions of the present Bill in the Patent Act, so that anyone looking up the legislation would not have to turn up the Exchequer Court Act to find out whether the commissioner had the right of appeal? If we are to give the commissioner the right of appeal by amending the Exchequer Court Act, one could not tell by looking up the Patent Act that he had that right Under the consolidation he would find that the appeal lies with the Exchequer Court, but he would have to look under the head of "Exchequer Court" to find a matter which is exclusively and entirely within the purview of the Patent Act. The Bill is all right. I do not want my hon. friend to think that I am criticising its principle; my only objection is in regard to the place which the title occupies in the statute. My object is to make the work easier for lawyers looking up the Patent Act to ascertain what the powers and the rights of appeal are, instead of having to look up the Exchequer Court Act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I rather fear the House is getting into matters of detail which can properly be discussed only in committee. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) states that he has no fault to find with the principle of the Bill, with which he is satisfied. The only question involved in his objection is one which it would be well to discuss in committee.


Jacques Bureau: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that changing the title of the Bill would be changing the whole Bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That does not involve the principle of the Bill.

Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, and on motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the chair.
On Section 1-Commissioner of Patents may appear by Counsel.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I quite realize there is a good deal of force, from the point of view of convenience, in that suggestion that the hon. member for Three Rivers fnakes. But unfortunately the practice has been to cover the entire jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court by the provisions in the Exchequer Court Act, and this particular provision does not differ from others, if I am correctly informed. You look to the Exchequer Court Act, for the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court, and there you find also a great variety of matters referred to. But it is there you go to ascertain the jurisdiction of that Court. The suggestion of the hon. gentleman, if it were to be useful, would involve the repealing of the Act of 1913 to which I think people have become thoroughly accustomed, and re-enacting it as an amendment to the Patent Act. While that might perhaps be advisable from the point of view of convenience, and while it might be well to put a clause into the Patent Act to say that there is an appeal to the Exchequer Court, I still think that the Exchequer Court Act is the proper place to regulate the jurisdiction of that Court, as likewise the right of appeal from the Exchequer Court to the Supreme Court. We might consider the desirability of putting a clause into the Pat-tent Act, if it is not there, to indicate that there is an appeal to the Exchequer Court, but in the meantime it would be well to let this bill pass. We are not here conferring jurisdiction on the Exchequer Court; that is already conferred by the existing Act. We are only making provision as to who shall be entitled to be heard before the Exchequer Court, and providing a right of appeal for both parties.	As the law stands at
present, the Exchequer Court has jurisdiction, and the appeal exists. The only difficulty is that it is now interpreted to mean that only one party can be heard before the Exchequer Court and only one party can appeal. We are not creating the appeal; we are simply providing that both parties may be heard on an appeal which already is provided for in the Exchequer Court Act.


Jacques Bureau: The statement of the minister gives more force to my suggestion. We are not conferring jurisdiction on the Exchequer Court; it already has jurisdiction. The only question is that an officer who comes within the scope of a specific Act, namely, the Commissioner of Patents, shall have the right to appeal to that court. The gist of the thing is not the right of appeal or the question of jurisdiction, tjut the right of the commissioner; and if you were looking for his powers, if you wanted to find out whether he had a right of appeal, you would naturally look to the Patent Act under the duties and powers of the commissioner. I do not object to this Bill being passed, but it creates confusion. My hon. friend knows better than any one else that if you have to go through five or six statutes having reference to different matters in order to find out what particular officer has to do, you are put to considerable labour and sometimes confusion is created. My object is to put under one heading and in one Act all the powers and privileges conferred upon this particular officer.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This Bill does not
create the appeal. It does not give the right of appeal even to the Commissioner of Patents. It only provides that on an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, which appeal can only be by the other parties and which already exists and is provided for in the Exchequer Court Act, the Commissioner of Patents shall be entitled to be heard. Then having once given him that right to be heard, we give him the same right to appeal from that decision that already exists in favour of the other party. So that we are in reality only regulating the procedure. There is convenience in confining the entire jurisdiction and procedure before the Exchequer Court in the Exchequer Court Act, and this is a matter of procedure. Before the section passes I desire to amend it to some extent. I do not know that it is necessary, but perhaps it is as well to put in the amendment which I shall propose. It has reference to the way in which the Commissioner of Patents is entitled to appeal. I would also move to insert, after the word "patents" in the eleventh line, the words "acting in the said capacity."


Mr. CANNON:: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) means, by the terms of his amendment, that the Commissioner of Patents shall have the right to appear for the Crown and as representing the inter-



ests of the public. If he adds " representing the interests of the public," and should the Supreme Court find against the opinion of the commissioner, should we infer that the finding is contrary to the interests of the public?


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) There are two interests to be represented: on the one side the interest of the party applying for the patent; then, against that, is the interest of the public, which may require that the patent be withheld; and there is the interest of the Crown. The commissioner will represent the public at large interested in its with-holdment. It may not be absolutely necessary to say that he has the right to appear as representing the. Crown and also as representing the interests of the public, but I do not see what objection there could be to it. There are cases where the Crown may appear by reason of having a special interest in the matter. There are others, as in the present case, in which the Crown is interested in appearing not in order to protect a special interest of the Crown, but in the interests of the public at large. Such seems to be the case on hand.


Lucien Cannon: (Translation.) I understand the explanation given by the right hon. Minister of Justice, but I believe that we may take as a principle in law that in a case where the Government is represented, the Government, through its representative, appears for the Crown. Now, under our constitution, the Crown represents the public in a general way, and if in a clause of our law we say that any one represents the Crown, I take it that we infer thereby that this person appears for the public in a general way. By adding that this person appears not only for the Crown but also in the interest of the public, we either make a distinction which should not be found in our laws, or it constitutes a tautology, which is not necessary. I believe that by saying, "The Commissioner of Patents, in the name of the Crown, shall have the right to appear . . ." the phraseology would be better and the idea more constitutional.


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) I should congratulate myself over the fact that the hon. member so completely admits that, the Government represents the interests of the whole public-


Lucien Cannon: (Translation.) As a legal fiction.


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) But I might perhaps acknowledge the tautology, for I confess that the phrase is not absolutely necessary. However, notwithstanding the respect I have for the opinion of the hon. member, I conceive that there are cases where the Crown, that is to say, the Government, acts as being itself interested, that is to say, by reason of the organized government as such having an interest therein; and there are other cases-such as this one-where the Government as such [DOT] is in no way interested in a patent being granted or denied to the applicant. In this case the interested party is the public in general. Though I admit that there would be no necessity of saying so expressly, it appears nevertheless desirable to indicate clearly in what capacity our commissioners are to be recognized and it can do no harm to state that they not only represent the Crown but have the special object of protecting an interest which is not so much that of the Crown as of the public in general. I concede that the Crown has the right to protect the interests of the public in general but if one refers simply to the general law, it is the Attorney General who should intervene to represent these interests. I wish to make it clear that the commissioner can, as representative of the public interests, lodge this appeal, as well as the Attorney General.


Lucien Cannon: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I am astonished to hear the hon. Minister of Justice advance this argument. We are in a British country. We live under British institutions, and in framing our legislation, we should, as far as possible, follow the principle of the British Constitution. I do not believe that in our public law, any more than in our private legislation, there could be a distinction between the Crown, as representative of the executive power of the judicial power, and of the people. It is very different in the United States. In that country I understand that one can say "The people vs. so and so," "The State vs. so and so;" but in a British country there can be no question of the people against an individual or of the State against an individual it is always the Crown. I am even more astonished to hear the right hon. Minister of Justice suggest a case where the interests of the Crown, in the acceptatioon of the word I have just indicated, might conflict with the interests of the people in a general way. How could it happen in a case before the Supreme Court that there might be con-

flict between the interest of the Government-the word Government, according to what the hon. Minister of Justice has just said, would then mean the Crown-and the interest of the general public? Who then would represent the general public? Who would have a mandate to represent the general public, according to the principles of our Constitution? Who could present himself before the Supreme Court-not only before the Supreme Court but before any court of our country-and say, " 1 represent the interests of the general public?" And how again could the commissioner or his representative claim to have the mandate to represent before the Supreme Court the interests of the general public, if these conflicted with those of the Crown? Who would represent the Crown? Could the Commissioner of Patents, as an officer of the Government, as one of the Crown's representatives, claim that he represented the interests of the general public as opposed to those of the Crown? I believe that as a legal proposition, it would hardily be defensible. Certainly my experience is much more limited than that of the minister, but I cannot conceive of cases where the Government could be represented by a lawyer who would go before the Supreme Court and claim that he represented the interests of the general public and that these interests were opposed to those of the Crown. A lawyer who would appear and uphold interests opposed to those of the Crown could not be the representative of the Government according to the principles which govern our Coustitution.


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, we might no doubt prolong this very interesting discussion in dwelling upon the part taken in it by the hon. member for Dorchester, but it would not lead to very important practical results. I will only say that I was misunderstood if it was believed that I had suggested that there could be interests of the Crown opposed to those of the general public. My proposition was, that, among the interests that the Crown is called upon to defend and protect, one might make a distinction between those of the Crown proper, so called, and those of the public, which the Crown, as its representative, is charged with protecting. Now these two interests usually are protected through the intermediary of the Attorney General. In this case under consideration, we make an exception as to the official who would appear to protect these interests, and we
designate this official to represent the interests that are as a rule represented by the Attorney General. It seems to me that in any case there is no harm in stating it. I admit the thing would go without saying, and as is often repeated-the remark was first made by a great man-things that go without saying are still better when said.


Jacques Bureau: (Translation.) Would
the object of the amendment then be that of removing all responsibility from the commissioner showing that he is acting as a representative of the Crown?


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) Yes.


Jacques Bureau: (Translation.) In that case, why not insert the phrase "es-qualite"? It is short, it is understood by every one, and it would show exactly in what capacity he comes before the Court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) These words would be better understood in our province than in any other part of the country. I do not know that these words have the same meaning in the English provinces as they have in our laws. Besides, even in saying "es-qualite," we do not specify in what capacity. There are several capacities. We say "es-qualite" when one appears as a tutor or as a curator. Could it be wrong to embody in the law not only that he appears es-qualite, but also state in which capacity?


Jacques Bureau: (Translation.) Would not the English words "Acting in his official capacity" translate the words "es-qualite"?


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) I do not think they would, not in the present instance; because if we say "In his official capacity," this would not mean In the capacity of Commissioner of Patents. We are simply granting him a new power. I do not know that I would have moved this amendment had I known that it would be objected to.


Jacques Bureau: (Translation.) I am not objecting, I am merely asking for information.


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) I believe the best reason is that one which I gave in reply to the hon. member for Dorchester. I do not think it wrong to say things sometimes which are not absolutely necessary.


Lucien Cannon: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, the clause such as it reads before the hon. minister moved the amend-

ment was the following: "The Commissioner of Patents has the right to appear and be heard through his lawyer, on the hearing of the appeal." The hon. minister now sug-gests/ that we add: "The Commissioner of Patents, on behalf of the Crown and as representing the interests of the public, shall have the right to appear and be heard through his lawyer, on the hearing of the appeal." Who shall decide if the commissioner appears for the Crown or if he does so in the interests of the public?


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) There shall be no necessity of a decision, for he shall have to do both. The amendment reads "On behalf of the Crown and as representing the interests of the public." If there are two distinct interests, he must represent both.


Lucien Cannon: (Translation.) As I
said, before, there can be no distinction from the legal and the constitutional point -of view, between the interests of the Crown and the interests of the public. Therefore, as the hon. minister has just said, if there is no distinction, there is no reason to add "the interests of the public" after saying "on behalf of the Crown" this being sufficient. The right hon. minister told us just a while ago, that there were cases *where a distinction might exist. Now, he tells us that such a distinction does not exist. If it does not exist, then if amounts to what I said: It is a case of redundancy, and it would be better to eliminate the last part of the amendment, in due regard for the principles of the constitution as well as for the improvement of our legal phraseology.


Jacques Bureau: (Translation.) Will the right 'hon. minister allow me to remark that there is a clause, in the patents law, which might properly apply to the case mentioned by the hon. member for Dorchester, namely, when an employee in the civil service asks for a patent. This employee has no right to obtain it for himself, unless he ask the government; there is a provision to the effect that the government is to be served first. The commissioner is the one who shall decide on what terms the patent may be granted. In a case like this, the interests of the public may differ from those of the Crown; and then, the commissioner cannot represent both interests at the same time, because in his official capacity, he will have to repre- * sent the Crown and refuse to grant the patent to the employee, or else make such

terms as would not be in the interests of the public generally. The words "or" instead of "and" should therefore be inserted, so that when a conflict should arise, he could choose between the two.


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) How then conciliate the opinion of my hon. friend from Dorchester witlj that of my hon. friend from Three Rivers? I am indeed on the horns of a dilemma.
It is obvious that I could not please both the hon. members at the same time, because my hon. friend from Three Rivers gives us to understand that in some cases the fact that the commissioner would be serving the interest of the Crown would preclude the idea that he was acting in the interest of the whole people.


Jacques Bureau: (Translation.)	Not
necessarily.


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) No, but I think the hon. member from Three Rivers came to my rescue during the discussion in which I was engaged with my hon. friend from Dorchester.
The hon. gentleman is supposing a case in which the commissioner, when claiming on behalf of the Crown a royalty from the man who is trying to use his patent, would be there to uphold the rights of the Crown as to the collection of a certain sum. Now, I do not deny that the people are indirectly concerned in that matter. All that is added to the public revenue benefits the people. However, such is not the case when it is a matter of safeguarding a right which each individual is directly entitled to. In fact, when it is a question whether a man is entitled to a patent or not, if he obtains it to whose detriment is it? To the detriment of the public who, by the fact this patent is granted, is debarred from using such an article. True, it is in a sense that the public is interested, even when the question is what amount should a man pay as a royalty for the privilege of availing himself of a patent. As I said a few minutes ago, although the Crown is primarily interested as collector of the revenue the people who are benefited by it are also interested.


Jacques Bureau: (Translation.) The
commissioner has the right to prevent the use of that patent, and it might be in the public interest that such a patent should be used.


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) In that sense, yes.


Jacques Bureau: That is provided tor in the same section.
(Section as amended agreed to.)
Bill, as amended, reported.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, When the order "Notices of Motions" was called, forty-six were read through and no hon. member was ready to proceed. Believing that some hon. members are prepared to go on now, I would move, with the consent of the House, this being private member's day, that the House do now return to the order, "Notices of Motions."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient, in order that a greater number of disabled soldiers and dependents be enabled to enjoy the benefits of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, that arrangements be made to, at the request of the Pensioner, deduct from Pension payments such sums as the said Pensioner shall indicate and apply same to the payment of insurance premiums under the said Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution is a very simple one. Under authority of an Act passed last session, the Government has entered into a plan of insurance for returned soldiers and their dependents. Although the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act has not been in force very long, it seems to have been productive of good results. I am informed that a large number of returned soldiers have taken advantage of it, and it is in order to allow a still larger number to be insured that I propose this resolution.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, a number of soldiers receive pensions, rather ' small in amount, varying from $2.50 to $10, $15 and more a month. The. money derived from these small pensions is not, as a rule, put to the very, best use. The amount is too small to be saved; it is more in the nature of pin money or spending money, so that the soldier derives no real benefit from it. Should the resolution which I propose carry, the soldier will be permitted, on making application to the Board of Pension Commissioners, to have his pension, or such part of it as may be necessary, apply toward the payment of premiums on insurance under the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. The premiums are fairly small; the rates are somewhat better than those given by the line companies, and if the soldier is permitted to request that deductions be made from his monthly pension cheque, to be applied upon premiums, he will be in a position to leave his dependents in a much better position should he unfortunately be carried off. I understand that there is no very great objection to the proposal on the part of the Government, except that its adoption might cause some trouble to the Board of Pension Commissioners; they might have to do a little extra work, and there may be some difficulty in connection with changes of pensions. For instance, having passed a new medical examination, a pensioner might be found quite fit, his pension would be cut off-I understand that this is the objection of the Board of Pension Commissioners-the insurance might be dropped. The answer to that is quite plain. In any case the man would be no worse off than he is at present; he would simply have to continue the payments out of his own resources. I do not think I need add anything further by way of explanation. I think the resolution ought to carry.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, this resolution
refers to a matter of some importance, but none the less a matter of administrative detail. It calls for the granting of the privilege to the pensioner of assigning all or part of his pension, thus making it applicable to the support of an insurance policy under the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. As hon. members know, particularly those who have been members of the Government, all departments of the Government are opposed to accepting assignments of pay; it is not the practice in any department that any payee from that department shall be permitted to make an assignment to a private citizen, to a company, even to another department, of his or her salary. No doubt, the objection on general grounds is on account of the greater administrative difficulty of being sure of the correct payment. I do not think any matter of mere difficulty or delay should stand in the way of an improvement, particularly if it is to advance or help the position of a returned soldier. I am not sure whether this would help him very much or not. Of course, any soldier now can turn his cheque back just as soon as he receives it.


Mr. McMASTER:: It will be easier if he never gets it.


Arthur Meighen: If he never gets it, he does not bother with it at all; but even if

he does get it, if he gives an assignment of the whole or part of it on his insurance, he can withdraw that assignment at any time he has a mind to. I suppose there would be less possibility-just slightly less -of a withdrawal or a lapse of the insurance if the privilege of assignment were given. I know the Pension Commissioners, doubtless more than any other branch of Government, have difficulty in being certain of the promptness and correctness of their payments. I do not know what the number is, but many cheques are returned every month, not finding their proper destination, and undoubtedly those difficulties would be enhanced if the assignment privileges were given. There is no doubt in the world that errors would creep in.
I think I am justified in saying, at this stage, that I purpose submitting to the House very shortly a resolution calling for the reappointment this session of a joint committee on re-establishment, along the lines of the re-establishment resolution of last session and the session before, though, perhaps, not just in the same wording. That being the case it occurs to me that, this would be a proper subject to submit to that committee. I think, therefore, it would be well, before giving the consent of the House to this resolution, that one or two members or officials of the Pension Board should be heard, so that the House might be advised by the committee who make detailed inquiry, whether it is worth while adopting this plan or not. I, therefore, suggest to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) that he allow the resolution to be withdrawn, on the understanding that the subject matter of the resolution will be submitted to the joint committee for report this session.


Charles Gavan Power: Only a word in answer
to the Prime Minister. I understand that no other member wishes to speak.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I thought, perhaps, the hon. member was about to withdraw his resolution. Of course, if any other hon. member desires to speak, he should do so now.


Charles Gavan Power: With reference to the
remark of the Prime Minister that it has not been the policy of the Government to permit assignments of any moneys due by governments, I will point out to him that, all during the war, assignments of soldiers' pay were not only permitted but, in fact, enforced. Soldiers were forced to assign their pay, for their own good, it was said,

so that, on a matter of principle such as that, the objection would fall to the ground, whereas, in this case the assignment would be simply a voluntary one in what the soldier would consider to be his own interest.
With reference to cheques being returned, it seems to me that the objection of the' Prime Minister would disappear. If the cheques were simply transferred from one department to another, we would have less difficulty in reference to returned cheques; there would be less difficulty with reference to wrong addresses of the pensioners, as the cheques would simply be sent
9 p.m. from the Board of Pension Commissioners direct to the Department of Returned Soldiers' Insurance. The Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act is a new one, and very few of us are familiar with the details of it. The proposition which I make, although I have already made it to the Pension Commissioners, is perhaps new to a large number of the members of this House, so that, in order to give them occasion to study it, I will cheerfully accede to the request of the Prime Minister, on the understanding that the subject matter of the resolution is to receive further consideration during the session. [DOT]
Resolution withdrawn.



PENSIONS TO WIDOWED MOTHERS OF RETURNED SOLDIERS.

Charles Gavan Power: moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is ex- pedient to amend the Act to provide pensions to or in respect of- members of the Canadian Naval and Military Air Forces, 1919, so as to provide that the pension of a widowed mother of a member of the forces who has died on active service shall not be reduced on account of her Income; and further that pension shall be granted her of right whether or not there are other living children.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members who have been interested in pensions are doubtless aware, this is by no means a new matter. Since I have been a member of this House, on every occasion on which an opportunity has presented itself, I have brought this subject to the attention of the House of Commons; I have advocated it in committee and on the floor of the House. We have the Pension Act which provides for pensions for disabled ex-soldiers, their dependents, the widows of soldiers, and, to a certain extent, the dependents parents of soldiers. This provision for dependent parents of soldiers is limited in many re-

spects, and, to my mind, it is and has been altogether too limited.
In this resolution I intend to discuss only that phase of the situation which has regard to the widowed mother of a soldier who has been killed overseas. It is my intention that this widowed mother should receive, at the hands of the state, absolutely the same treatment as the actual widow of a soldier killed at the front. There are and have been certain restrictions and limitations to the pensions allotted to the widowed mother. Some of those restrictions I am glad to say, owing to the efforts of those members in the House who have been interested in that class of pensioners, have disappeared. Formerly the widowed mother who earned any money was not allowed to benefit by the Pension Act. We had the sad spectacle of the mother who had given her only son to the cause being obliged, though her age hardly permitted her to work, to engage as scrub woman. This, I am glad to say, has disappeared since the Pension Committee has made the recommendation, which the House has accepted, to the effect that the actual earnings of the widowed mother shall not be taken into account in calculating her pension. But the widowed mother's enjoyment of a pension is limited by statute. By the Pension Act of 1920, it is provided that:
The pension to any parent or person in the place of a parent shall be subject to review from time to time and shall be continued, increased, decreased or discontinued in accordance with the amount deemed necessary by the Commission to provide a maintenance for such parent or person but in no case shall such pension exceed the amount of pension prescribed for parents in schedule B of this Act.
One great complaint we have had hitherto is that the widowed mother, being limited and restricted with reference to her pension, has had to have this pension revised at different times, and the pension itself has always been subject to review. The result has been that in order to keep these pensions straight, a whole horde of inspectors and visitors comes down on the unfortunate woman who receives a pension. We have had cases of these visitors coming in and questioning the poor widow whether or not she was satisfied with the pension she obtained, and by a series of adroit questions finding out that perhaps the poor woman obtained certain sums from insurance on her late husband or that she owned a little piece of property in some other part of the country, or had a few dollars in the bank. All these things were duly reported to headquarters by the
visitor, and headquarters in a large number of cases, I am sorry to say, cut off the pension. There have been numerous complaints as to pensions being cut off in this way; and it is to obviate that difficulty that I am proposing that this pension should not be subject to any review whatsoever, but that once granted it should be granted for good and all. Section 23 of the Pensions Act provides:
When a parent or person in the place of a parent has unmarried sons residing with him or her who should, in the opinion of the Commission, be earning an amount sufficient to permit them to contribute to the support of such parent or person, each such unmarried son shall be deemed to be contributing not less than ten dollars a month towards such support.
You will note that the statute makes reference only to unmarried sons. Now it was well understood, and I think every member of last year's Pensions Committee will bear me out in this, that in no case was the Act to be interpreted in such a fashion as to allow any deductions to be made from a widow's pension on account of the earnings of any married male member of the family or of any female members of the family. If I remember rightly, the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt), or the hon. member for East Al-goma (Mr. Nicholson), last year instanced a case where an amount was deducted from a pension because one of the girl members of the family had earned a certain amount of money by working as a stenographer, and at the time the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn), and the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), indignantly denied that anything was to be deducted from the widow's pension on account of the earnings of any of the female members of the family. If I have given the wrong names or ascribed to any hon. member things he did not say, I hope he will call my attention to it. Now, how does this work out in practice? I had a case to submit during the course of the summer, one among very many, to the Board of Pension Commissioners. I may state in passing that it is not my intention to attack in any way the Board of Pension Commissioners. I consider they have a very difficult duty to ferform, and that on the whole they have performed it well, but I contend that no such discretion should be given to the Board or to any other Government officials as is given under this Act. It has been the experience, I think, with those who have had to do with Government departments that when we give

too much discretion to Government officials, they are apt to become very officious, and we are apt to find that their discretion is usually not in the best interests of those whose affiairs they are supposed to administer. However, to return to the point I was discussing, of unmarried sons geing presumed to contribute $10 per month, in this particular case I was informed by the Board as follows:
According to your letter W is earning $1,200 per annum. J. is undergoing .treatment for T. B. C. in the S. C. R.
I might say that in this case three sons were at the war; one is now earning a certain amount of money, another owing to war service is now totally disabled and is undergoing treatment in the S. C. R., and it was suggested by the Board of Pension Commissioners that this gentleman undergoing treatment in the S. C. R. for T. B. C. should support on the allowance he gets from the S.C. R. his widowed mother. I will leave that suggestion with those who took part in the deliberations of the Pensions Committee last year. The Board goes on to state:
Further, that the income of the home is $1,500 per annum on account of the earnings of the two daughters.
Because the daughters between them were earning $1,500 this widowed mother was not granted the pension to which she would have been entitled under the Act. Now I submit that under the Act mention is made only of deductions on account of the earnings of an unmarried son residing with the parent, and not in the case of those residing elsewhere, and most certainly not from the earnings of daughters who are obliged owing to the family circumstances to earn their living in the world. Further, paragraph (7) provides, and I think the members of the Pensions' Committee will remember that there was considerable discussion of this point last year:
The pension to a widowed mother shall not be reduced on account of her earnnigs from personal employment or on account of her having free lodgings or so long as she resides in Canada on account of her having an income from other sources which does not exceed two hundred and forty dollars per annum.
The first point is this: If the widowed mother's income exceeds $240 per annum, that is, if she has more than $20 per month, they will have nothing to do with her, they will give her no pension. The widowed mother, in many cases too old to work and utterly incapable of earning her living, is

supposed to be able to get along on a measly $20 per month. I submit that in the judgment of this House we should not force these women, who in many cases have lost their only support, to be obliged to live in such fashion.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is wrong
there. I think he must have got a wrong impression from reading the Act. That is not the law at all.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Quite the contrary.'


Charles Gavan Power: I am very glad if it is
not but I am under the impression that it is.


Arthur Meighen: If the $20 is unearned income, that is, if it < comes from some source other than her own earnings, it is deducted from the maximum she is entitled to, which is $60, and I understand this is the only country in the world where she gets such a maximum.


Arthur Meighen: I have understated it. She may get the $60 in addition to the $20. Up to $20 there is no deduction, but beyond that, if her income is unearned, it may be deducted from the $60. That is the law.


Charles Gavan Power: As a matter of fact that should be the interpretation of the law. But in the correspondence which I have had with the Board of Pension Commissioners that is not the interpretation which has been given it, and that is why I wish to make the matter perfectly clear.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member read the letter?


Charles Gavan Power: I have four or five letters, but I should not like to go into the details or to give names.


Arthur Meighen: Very well.


Charles Gavan Power: I may say, however, that there has been considerable discussion about the matter and I am quite willing to communicate to the Prime Minister the purport of this correspondence. In any case we will suppose that the Prime Minister is right and that the Board of Pension Commissioners do interpret the law in the way they should. I will call the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that section 7 provides that the pension shall not be reduced by reason of earnings so long as the recipient resides in Canada. This would have the effect of precluding all those widowed mothers who reside, let us say, in the United States, in Scotland, or in England. On this point I would remind

63S
the Prime Minister that last year during the discussion of the Pensions Bill certain hon. members, for instance, the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen s (Mr. Fielding), the hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair) and the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoiia (Mr. McKenzie), pressed this point to such an extent that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), asked that the section be suspended for some time. After this suspension the Prime Minister returned to the House, whilst the discussion of the Bill was still in progress and stated:
I shall certainly take into consideration what has been said on this subject by the hon. gentlemen who have spoken. I see some force in the observation as to the feeling of irritation which might be created by too close or too frequent inquiries into ttie private affairs of persons who have lost near relatives in the war.
This refers to the first point.
But my hon. friends will observe that it will be impossible to change this provision without bringing down another resolution. I hope, therefore, they will be willing to accept my assurance that what they have said in the matter will not be overlooked.
I think that if I had time I could show to the present Prime Minister that the postponement of further consideration of the clause was due, in great part at any rate, to the objections of hon. members on this side as well as across the floor in regard to widowed mothers resident in the United States. Subsection 8 section 23 of the Act says that the pension of a parent or person in place of a parent shall not be reduced on account of the payment of such person of municipal insurance on the life of a deceased member of the forces. I contend that the pension should not be reduced by reason of the payment of any insurance. My contention is that if the deceased young man made his insurance payable to his mother, as in a great many cases good boys do, and paid for it, she should get it and should not have her pension deducted in consequence. As my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) reminds me, such payment would not be deducted in the case of a claim for damages. And though this is not a case of a claim for damages against the country, it is a case in which the country has a solemn obligation to fulfil towards these soldiers and their dependents. When the soldiers went to the war it was definitely promised that their people would be no worse off financially, should they be so unfortunate as to lose their lives in the
cause for which the country was fighting, than when they went away, I submit-and this is the whole tenor of my resolution

that the widowed mother should be placed on exactly the same basis as the widow. The widowed mother who lost her son at the front is as a rule well up in years and is unable to earn her living in any way or to increase her income; and it should be the peculiar and special care of the state to look after her. I say that we have possibly a greater obligation towards the widowed mother than towards the widow herself, and it is our duty to see to it that we are not told that the aged mothers of Canadian soldiers are in want or are apt to be in want owing to discriminatory legislation of this Parliament.
I do not think there is very much more' that I need say on this subject. I think, however, that it might perhaps have been better to have discussed it on a day when there was a larger attendance of members. But I see a number of those who in the past have supported the object of this resolution, and I hope that this, the fifth session during which I have brought this matter to the attention of the House, will be the last in which I shall have been obliged to argue in favour of this class of dependents who deserve so much from the country.


Mr. HUME CRONYN (London) :: The
hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Power) will admit that he and I have fought together on this question through several of the pension committees sitting in former years, and sometimes we were practically alone in our fight in that respect. Now I certainly do not want to say anything to-night that would prejudice or pre-judge the position of the widowed mother. No one could have greater sympathy with her than I have. I cannot forget the remark of one of the Chairmen of patriotic funds who, during the course of the war-said he had yet to find a mother who was not broken-hearted because her son went overseas. But throughout not only our pension legislation but that of every other country has run the difference between a pension to a widow and a pension to dependent parents. The widow as the hon. member has said, gets her pension as of right absolutely independently of what her station in life may be; but the parents of the man who has died have always been called upon to prove, first; that they were supported, or might be supported, by the son who had died, and, second; that their financial position was such that they were

really in a dependent position. Once their financial independence was shown their right to a pension ceased. Well, we have improved the position to a certain extent. In the early years of the war the widowed mother only got $22 a month. She gets now, with the bonus awarded during this year, $60 a month. Then she had deducted from her pension her personal earnings. Well, that was corrected. She was, I think, two years ago allowed her personal earnings without any deduction for her pension. Any independent or unearned income which she might receive was deducted from the pension awarded to her; and the Pension Board, as perhaps was their duty, went to some lengths in construing what was an independent income. They held, for instance, that the ownership of a house was equivalent to a certain amout of rental per annum, and while they fixed that rental at a reasonable figure, some $10 or $15 a month, the mother's ownership of that house did result in a reduction in her pension. They also held that if she had sons capable of maintaining her living with her and earning a sufficient income, the duty of maintaining the mother rested on those living sons and that no pension was due. Well, as I say, we corrected some of those things. A widow may now live in her own house and yet we make no reduction from her pension; and as the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) says, if she is in receipt of an independent income up to $20 a month, no deduction is made on account of that income. That is to say she will get $60 a month by way of pension even if she is in receipt of $20 a month of independent income, or $80 a month altogether. If she gets $25 a month independent income, $5 comes off her pension. If she gets $80 a month independent income she gets no pension at all and, to that extent, she is in an absolutely different position from the widow of a soldier. Then we have also provided under the last Act, as has already been explained, that if the mother had sons living with her who, in the opinion of the Pension Board, were capable of supporting her, those sons should be held to be contributing $10 a month toward the support of their mother. If she only had two such sons, and had no independent income, that would be considered to be equivalent to $20 of unearned income and no deduction would be made from her pension; but if she had more than two sons, or if she had an independent income and two sons living with her, then there might be a deduction of income.

I confess that I am surprised to learn that the Act has been so construed that the earnings of a daughter are deducted or are taken into account. It was certainly not according to my recollection. I have not had the opportunity of looking at the Act recently, but my memory is very clear that so far as the Pension Committee is concerned we only considered and were only considering sons, and the question of daughters or the earnings of daughters never arose.
While one hesitates to mention the ques- . tion of cost in a matter of this kind I think I should point out to the House that the estimate of the cost of the proposed changes which we made last year-those changes which I have tried to outline- represented an increase of nearly two and a half millions in the annual pension bill of the country. It struck me, that that was a very high estimate at the time, but it was the one furnished us by responsible officials and we had to adopt it. I have not yet had any intimation as to how the changes have worked out in actual practise. I believe that we are the only country that has, up to date, made the allowances on behalf of a mother that have been made. As I understand it the greatest amount allowed by any other country to a dependent mother is $48 a month, and all unearned income is deducted from that pension. Perhaps we have not gone far enough yet. I think it is a matter that might very well be again considered if a committee is appointed this session.


Peter McGibbon: This is a question which I, with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), have fought for a good many years. I am not considering either what the cost to Canada is, or what any other country does; it is a question of whether Canada has done justice to these women or whether she has not. I agree with the hon. member for Quebec South that there has been a great deal of irritation, too much irritation, by having inspectors unnecessarily visit these women. They go around more or less in disguise, they do not know what they are after, and the first thing the recipients know these widows' pensions are cut off, or reduced, and we do not get any reason for such action until we come down here to the Pension Board at Ottawa. I do not think that is fair. Neither do I think it is fair that there should be any discrimination between widows and widowed mothers. While I do not wish to raise the question of discrimination here,

I would certainly say that if any discrimination were to be made it should be made in favour of the mothers. We all know that these women are older as a class than the wives, and their earning power and capacity in life is diminished, compared with the younger set of women who happen to be left widows. In estimating their dependent condition I think the figures have been set altogether too low. For instance you say that a woman is not entitled to a pension unless she is in a dependent condition, and I admit there is a great deal to be said for that.
But then you come down to set a figure, and you set $240 as the limit. That is to say, I think no deduction should be made -and I moved this in committee once or twice last year-where a woman is in receipt of less than $700 or $800 a year. Considering the cost of living to-day, I do think a woman is dependent if she has not that amount of income, and I think a great deal of this trouble might be eliminated if that standard was raised. I realize, of course, that it would not do to put women enjoying an income of $4,000 or $5,000 on a footing of equality with women who have a very small income, but I think it is altogether too low to set the limit at $240.
I agree with the hon. member for Quebec South that we have to make the administration more a matter of routine, and not leave so much to the discretion of the Board of Pension Commissioners. I have nothing but the highest praised for those commissioners. I have found them at all times considerate and more or less generous, but they do have a faculty of interpreting the regulations in a manner which does not always meet with my approval. As I said before, I think we must eliminate all these irritating conditions. I do not think it is fair to deduct from a married woman's pension $10 a month if she has a boy who is not working or whom she is not able to make work. It is pretty bard for a mother to say to her boy, "You have got to work or get out." Sometimes he is not able to work, and sometimes she is absolutely unable to force him, and in a great many cases she has not the heart to do it. In my opinion these pensions should be made a matter of absolute right. I do not think you can put them on any other ground and do justice to the widows and mothers of the soldiers who died in France. I cannot see why any distinction should be made between a boy's mother and a boy's widow when they were both dependent upon him for a living. I also agree
with the hon. member for Quebec South that any insurance they might have coming to them through the generosity of municipalities or firms or societies should not be deducted from their pensions. Surely Canada is big enough and generous enough to pay her own debts to these widows and widowed mothers without taking into consideration such insurance.
I hope that this matter will be settled once for all. I think the Pension Committee in the past has succeeded in eliminating nearly all the defects of the Pension Act. Up to a couple of years ago it had many defects, but during the last year I think the committee has worked admirably, and as far as I have been able to find there are to-day very few complaints indeed. Most of them, I am sorry to say, are associated nearly altogether with the medical men. Consciously or unconsciously, they seem to have got into their system some kind of microbe which impels them to screw pensioners down very often to the lowest possible figure. I do not believe that that is in the best interests of Canada, and I do not believe that such action expresses the will of this House, the will of this Government, or the will of the people.


Hon. S. C. MEWBURN (East Hamilton) :: Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with many of the suggestions thrown out by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). My sympathy goes out very largely to the widowed mother. I do not think that we should boast of what Canada has done or is doing for her soldiers. I believe it is the desire of this Government and the wish of the people that none of her soldiers' dependents should suffer one iota. When I was Minister of Militia I suggested in this House that the Government should grant to the mothers who had lost their boys in the war a small silver cross, which I designated The Mother's Cross of Sacrifice. To my mind the greatest sacrifice in this war was made by the mothers who reared their boys and sent them to the battlefront. I know of many instances where a widowed mother has suffered more than any one realizes, and is in fact suffering to-day, and will continue to suffer for the rest of her life. While this country has been generous, and while I for one realize that the Board of Pension Commissioners have done herculean work and that complaints have been few and far between, yet I think the commissioners are forgetting one essential fact in the administration of the Act, namely, that they are dealing with human beings.



C36 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
I think there should be a little more human kindness in the administration. I have every confidence in the Prime Minister's assurance that he proposes to move for the appointment of another committee to go into these various matters this session. The committee appointed last year did magnificent work, of which the soldiers and the country heartily approved, as did also this House. If that committee is reappointed I am confident that what has been brought forward by the hon. member for South Quebec, with a portion of which I entirely agree, will have the most careful and sympathetic consideration and that something will be worked out to meet this situation.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Pension Committee ever since there was a pension committee of this House, I must confess that I think we considered this question at all our meetings. Somebody has said that the widowed mother is always old. I know a great many widowed mothers that are not any older than the widows of our boys, so that that description is not always appropriate.
As to the limit of $240, the Ontario Government recently passed an Act whereby the widow without children gets $30 a month; the widow with one child, $35 a month; the widow with two children, $40 a month; the mother with three children, $45 a month, and the widow with four children, $50 a month. Our pension to the widowed mother was $60 a month with no deduction for her own earnings, but a deduction for unearned income over $240, leaving $80 a month as explained by the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn).
I see no reason why, sons, who are unmarried and living at home, should not assist in supporting their mother or their father, for it encourages thrift on the part of the boys, and, after all, it is their duty. If a mother wants to board her son without charging him anything, why that is her or the family's lookout, but the country should not be called upon to be philanthropic to the extent of making good her indulgence or his default. That sort of philanthropy breeds a type of people who are not of much use in this country. Nobody respects the mother more than I do, whether she be a widow or not a widow, and whether she be in this country or in any other country. But we have gone pretty far in the granting of pensions, and if people are economical and try to get on they will find the pensions ample 
to maintain their families in all decency. Somebody said that the boy who was in a sanitarium was expected to pay something toward the upkeep of his mother, as well as the boy who has been living at home. As I understand it, the boy in the sanitarium is allowed $17 a month for incidental expenses-cigarettes, laundry, and that sort of thing, and the dependent receives $75 a month. No man who is in a sanitarium, no matter where it is located, requires that $75 a month, for he is supplied with everything-nursing, food, and so on.


Charles Gavan Power: Does my hon. friend think that this $75 a month, granted of right to the soldier who has been disabled by war service, should be applied to the unkeep of his dependent mother?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not see why part of it should not be so applied. If the man is disabled he will be pensioned; if he is in the sanitarium only temporarily and subsequently recovers fully, he will not receive a pension when he comes out; he is expected to earn his living in civil life. I have the greatest sympathy for both the widow and the widowed mother, but there is no use in running away with sentiment; it does not assist either the widow or the widowed mother to become independent, to become a good citizen. I repeat that the boy who leaves home and who will not help to support his mother or his father will never become a good citizen. I see no reason why the Government or the Board of Pension Commissioners should make that deduction of $10 a month. It is a very small amount. After all, the pensions throughout are generous. However, this is a question which should be brought before the Pension Committee, if it is going to be appointed, and thrashed out by them; then if the House does not agree with the -report of that Committee, the matter can be further discussed here.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the resolution of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). I could never see any justification for a distinction between the pension payable to the widow and wife of the soldier and that payable to the widowed mother. It seems to me that the test is whether the pension is payable as a matter of right or as a matter of dependency, We must adopt either of these two principles as applicable to both class of cases. We have adopted the principle that the widow or wife of the soldier is entitled to

pension as a matter of right, and we endeavour to ascertain what amount will be sufficient to enable her to live comfortably and decently during the time she is in receipt of that pension. We should apply the same principle to the widowed mother and grant her the pension as a matter if right, as in the case of the widow.
The member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) contends that if we pay these sums to widowed mothers as a 'matter of right, there will be a tendency to breed in this country a class of people entirely dependent upon the Government for support. But if he stands by that argument he must also apply it to the widow or wife of the soldier who was killed at the front, because many a man who was killed at the front left behind him sons who are just as -capable of supporting his widow-their mother-as the brothers of a man killed overseas are capable of supporting their widowed mother. I think it is simply a matter of right that the widowed mother should be classed with the widow of the soldier, and that pensions should be paid to her without any deductions on account of insurance or other income from independent sources. When the Committee are considering this question they can bear in mind the opinions which have been expressed in the House tonight in connection with the matter, and if they do I should think that they they would bring in a report along the lines I have suggested. Should they fail to do so the House will be at liberty to deal with the matter on a subsequent occasion. I have much pleasure in supporting the arguments which have been submitted to the House by the hon. member for Quebec South.	'


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound) :: Mr. Speaker, I have much pleasure in supporting the views of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). This is a question which has been before the. Pension Committee for some time. I believe that in every case the widowed mother should be treated in just the same way as the dependent widow. There is another question in connection .with this matter which has come to my mind during the progress of the debate, and that is the position of the woman who marries the returned soldier who dies subsequent to his injury from any cause. As the member for Muskoka rightly said, our medical men are apt to interpret the law very closely, and in many cases the widow of a returned soldier is left without any assistance from
the Government simply because she married a soldier after his return to Canada. We find that men who returned to Canada 90 or 75 or 60 per cent, disabled receive for themselves, their wives and children, an amount of pension proportionate to their disability, while the wife of the soldier, whom she married after his return to Canada and who subsequently died, receives nothing. These aspects of the question should be taken into consideration by the Committee and reported upon favourably.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to let this opportunity pass without again expressing my sympathy with the object of the resolution moved by the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). I have, on two or three previous occasions, spoken very strongly in favour of the utmost liberality as regards the treatment of the widowed mother of a soldier. While her pension has been improved in many respects, I feel it is hardly yet as liberal as I should like to see it. I admire the spirit that actuates the hon. member for Oxford North (Mr. Nesbitt) in keeping down the expenses of the country as far as possible-and, perhaps, there are too few of us who take that course-but I feel that in the present case the committee have not yet been over liberal. I know of a few cases in which hardship has resulted. I have always taken the ground-and I do not see any reason for changing it-that when men have died, as these men have, in the interest of this country and the Empire, we owe them a different debt from that which we may owe to any other class of citizens. The hon. member for Oxford North has related what has been done in Ontario with regard to pensions for widows, but it ought to be remembered that the widows who are provided for by the Ontario Act have become widows by an act of Providence.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What about the others? Was that not an act of Providence?


William Foster Cockshutt: Just a moment.
The one has become a widow by an act of Providence, and in the other case the soldier has died in the service of his country. I consider that there is a greater responsibility upon the country when a man dies in its service than there is in the case of a man who has died without giving any particular service to his country. I hope, of course, all citizens do some service to their country, and J do not say they do not; but this country owes a certain debt to the

man who has died at the front or on account of illness that he has contracted at the front, by reason of the sacrifice that has been made, and if we cannot pay that debt to the man, we can pay it to the widow. There is quite a strong difference, and deductions should not be made by reason of the earnings of the widowed mother.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They are not.


William Foster Cockshutt: Yes, they are. I remember a case that I have brought up two or three times before the Pension Board and it is not yet settled. Because the widow has up to the present been able to earn a fairly good living, she is denied a pension. The late member for York-Sunbury (Mr. McLeod) also brought up the same matter and, so far as I know, it has never been settled because the widow is able to earn a certain amount in a banking institution, and' if the amount is above the specific amount that has been named, nothing is done. They tell her that if she finally becomes incapacitated so that she cannot work, her case will be taken into consideration, but not as long as she can earn what is possibly a fairly good living for a widow. She is, however, working beyond her years, and the day will soon be at hand when she cannot continue to work. The country owes a debt to that widow
10 p.m. whether she is willing and able to go out and earn her daily bread or not; she may wish to lay up something for a rainy day, and the country should not be so severe in making deductions from the pension of a widow simply because she is able to earn a certain amount for her sustenance. I speak very strongly in this connection. I know the hon. member for Oxford North does not agree with me-and I am sorry for that because I esteem his judgment as very valuable-but at the same time I believe, if he opens up his heart-strings a little more, the country will not find fault with him in that respect. I believe in being absolutely generous to the widows and widowed mothers of returned soldiers. If we do anything to lighten the burden and to make them forget some of the sad loss that they have sustained as a result of this war, we are doing what is simply our duty and the most liberal treatment we can give is not too much in connection with the resolution that my hon. friend (Mr. Power) has put on the Order Paper. I am pleased to add a word on behalf of this matter and I trust, if a committee is

appointed, this matter will be further con sidered and I am sure it will meet the views of a large number of the members of this House if even more generous treatment is given to the widows and widowed mothers of returned soldiers.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's) :: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) is to be congratulated on having presented this matter to the House in such a form as to win, as it has, a large measure of sympathy from hon. members. I have such a high appreciation of the work done by the committee that sat during the last two years under the able chairmanship of the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn), that I would be reluctant to see any change made in the matter of pensions without having the matter first submitted to the committee. I hope from the expressions of opinion given by hon. members this evening that the committee will be able to concur in the case presented by the hon. member, but, at all events, an opportunity will be given for considering it. I know the object of these deductions, and it is a good one. The idea is that you do not want to pay pensions to people who do not need them. That is a very commendable object; but if we have regard to the number of pensions generally, are there enough cases of that kind to make it worth while to make that regulation? In making these deductions with the resultant worry and interference, is the game worth the candle? The number of wealthy people in Canada is not very great; in this country wealth is fairly equally and comfortably distributed-and that is better than a few people having the wealth as is the case in some countries-so that if you had no deductions at all, the number of widows who would get a pension and who did not need it, would not be very large, and if they got a little more, no great harm would be done. The suggestion of the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. P. McGibbon) is that, unless it can be shown that the widow is in receipt of a very substantial sum from other quarters, the wise policy would be to have no deductions at all. I would suggest to the hon. member for Quebec South that, having made the progress he has in the good work, he consent to let the matter go to the committee and bring it up at a later date, if that be necessary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, it affords me a

great deal of pleasure to join with the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) in congratulating the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Powers) upon the manner in which he has brought his motion forward, and upon the reception with which his presentation of it has been met. There is no doubt that the case of the widowed mother is one that appeals most strongly to the sympathies of all of us. I am sure that we would all desire that every means should be taken to prevent its happening that any mother who has lost her son in the service of this country should be left in any condition approaching even to want. Of course, when you come to carry out your desires, there are some considerations that have to be borne in mind, because, after all, you have to arrive at some definite sum. Some consideration ought to be given to equality. While you may avoid laying down an absolute rule as to what particular amount of income, independent of other sources than the pension, should lead to deductions being made from a pension, still, it does rather appeal to one that a good deal is to be said against granting pensions to people with regard to whom it is absolutely impossible to suggest that there can be any need. It has occurred to me, listening to the discussion, that one way of meeting the situation, and perhaps a fairer way-I am not expressing any conclusion; this is only what occurred to me-might lie in the direction of increasing the maximum amount of sixty dollars that is to be given as a pension, rather than in directing one's attention solely to the question of what deductions, if any, ought to he made.
However, I do not desire to express any final opinion on the subject this evening. I think the hon. member for South Quebec (Mr. Power) can rest assured that the matter will engage the serious, and I do not think I would be going too far in saying, the sympathetic attention of the committee. I would join with my hon. friend from Shel-burn and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) in asking the hon. member for South Quebec, if with the assurance that the matter will he brought to the attention of the committee, and seriously, and carefully, and I think I may say, sympathetically looked into by them, he might not think it proper at the present time to withdraw his motion.
Mr. THOMAS W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carleton, N.B.) :	As a member
of last year's Pension Committee it would probably not be amiss for me to say a
word in this discussion. I supported the hon. member for South Quebec (Mr. Power) when he moved this resolution before the Pension Committee last year. When the resolution was defeated in the committee it was only by a very small majority, and I felt at the time, and still feel, that if the whole committee had been present when the vote was taken it would have carried.
There is one other case I wish to bring to the notice of the House and of the committee, and it is that of the widow of the soldier who was wounded or disabled overseas and who marries after his return to Canada. His widow is absolutely denied a pension under the present Act. I would like to see this injustice to the large number of widows of returned soldiers who have married subsequent to their disability remedied this session. I also agree with the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) that the sum of $240 per annum is too small an amount of income to allow before deductions are made from the pension. I fully agree with my hon. friend from Muskoka that no deduction should be made from the widow's pension on an unearned income of less than $700 or $800 a year. In view of the fact that a pension committee is to be appointed this year, I think it would be the part of wisdom for my hon. friend from South Quebec to let this matter go before that committee, and I think there is very little question that these matters will be remedied in accordance with his resolution.
Mr. DANIEL D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria) : There is just one phase of this subject that I should like to bring to the notice of the House, and particularly of the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn), who was chairman of the Pension Committee last, year and who in the natural course of events will be chairman this year if another committee is appointed. I appreciate very much the forceful and very proper way in which the hon. member for South Quebec (Mr. Power) has placed the subject before the House, and I am sure the discussion that has taken place, and the experiences that several members have given, will be of assistance to the committee when they come to consider these questions.
There is one point I would like to impress upon the House, and that is in connection with the deductions that are made from the pension in cases where there happen to be two or more sons. I know that in the part of the country from which I come there are many cases where there are perhaps

one or two sons who should support their mother, but who will not, and what is the good of throwing the impossible burden on the widow of compelling these boys to support her? There are lots of boys who will not do so, and unless they are supporting their mother voluntarily and freely, it is not right to say that the mothef shall suffer because they are not doing their duty. In cases of that kind, where the widowed mother cannot increase her income except by what her boys might give, I would certainly say to the House and to the committee, whoever they may be, that they might very well leave out of consideration making any deduction from the pension of the widow.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: May I ask whether these boys live at home with the mother?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In some cases they
do and perhaps in a niggardly way pay their board. My hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) knows that boys sometimes take advantage of their mother when they are boarding and rooming with her that they would not take of other people, and will not pay as much for their board as they would have to pay elsewhere. I know cases of that kind, where the mother has to do the washing, for instance, and give the board cheaper - than the boys could get it elsewhere. The boys will pay just the amount they were paying before prices went up, and the mother is the loser. That is all the profit she gets from boarding her boys. I do not wish to give a bad name to the people in my part of the country, but there are cases of that kind, and I think I am more than justified in bringing them to the attention of the committee. I repeat that the committee should leave out their consideration making deductions from the pension of a widow who has sons who might support her, but who are not doing so.
I wish particularly to bring to the notice of the House the case of some widows who are not receiving a pension at all, and so far as I know, have not received any consideration from the Government so far. It is within the knowledge of the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie), the exminister (Mr. Mewburn), and other members of this House that at certain stages of the war, in 1915, 1916, and perhaps later, this Government engaged some steamers to carry supplies to the old country, iron and steel, for instance, from Sydney, for the purposes of the war on the other side of the water. These steamers were engaged

for that war service, and I have one particularly in mind at the present moment, the ".Sharon," owned, I think, in Quebec. She was chartered by the Department of Railways and Canals, loaded with steel at Sydney, and started for the other side of the water, but she never got across. The belief is that she was torpedoed. At all events, she never reached the other side, and all on board were lost. Sixteen or seventeen, perhaps twenty, widows were left in my toVn by reason of the loss of the " Sharon." Now if the steamer was torpedoed, and there being no evidence to the contrary it is not a great stretch of the imagination to believe she was, while engaged by the Government of this country for the purposes of the war, these men lost their lives by reason of the war, and it does not take very close reasoning to show that their widows are entitled to some consideration at the hands of the people of this country, and of this Parliament. I would like to have cases of this kind kept in mind by the committee when they come to consider the other features that have been brought to their notice. These steamers that were chartered were not war vessels, but they were used for the purpose of carrying supplies to be used for war purposes, and while the " Sharon" was so engaged these men lost their lives by reason of the unsafe condition of navigation. I would urge that as just as good a case for consideration by the committee as if the men had been killed at the front.


Charles Gavan Power: It has been alleged during the course of this discussion, or at least it has been suggested, that in some cases the widowed mother obtained more than the widow herself and that she should be very well off with the sum of, say, $80 per month. Now, I am not asking for $80, I simply ask that she be given $60 per month in exactly the same way as the widow obtains it, and without there being any deduction whatsoever. I ask that she be given it of right, that there be no question as to whether she has a house, as to whether she lives in the house which she owns, whether she is keeping a boardinghouse or has turned it into an apartment house, deriving an income therefrom, whether she has a few dollars in the bank, or whether a few dollars were left to her from insurance, or any other consideration of that kind. The point I wish to make quite clear to the House is that to my mind, the widowed mother of the soldier is entitled to be placed by this country in exactly the same position as the widow

of the soldier. I have been told also that we should encourage the widowed mother to become independent. It seems to me that the mother of a boy who has been killed at the front has usually reached an age when it is no business of the country to try to encourage her to become independent; it is rather its duty to see that she is independent. We are not going to set up a school to teach the elderly women who have sacrificed their all in the great war how to become independent in this country. There is no question to my mind of the opinion of the House on this matter, I think that every hon. member will agree with me that this is no time to bring this question before the House. What the province of Ontario does with regard to mothers' pensions is one matter. I do not care what it does. But what the Dominion of Canada does with regard to the, mothers of the sons whom she sent to the front is a matter with which we are all concerned. We have our pledged word to these boys; we have our pledged word in the face of the whole Dominion of Canada; and it seems to me that the least a House of Commons such as this, elected during the war and in the war spirit, can do is to keep its war pledges.
Now, I have been asked to allow this matter to be referred to committee. As I said before, for four years I have been fighting the case of the widowed mothers, and have spoken in furtherance of it in committee; and on each occasion, I am sorry to say, the committee refused to bring in- a favourable report. Last year, I submitted this identical resolution, which a number of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House and to my left supported. It was referred to the Pension Committee, amidst, I may say, the acclamation of the entire House of Commons. But when the Pension Committee reported they were too busy reporting on other things to have anything to say in favour of the widowed mother, except for a very small amendment to the law as it stood. And when, not being satisfied with the decision of the Pension Committee, either last year or the year before, I carried the matter to the floor of the House, where it was discussed, I was told first that if this point were to be insisted upon, The whole matter would have to be referred back to the committee and in that event it would be held up because the committee would not have time to report before the end of the session. This has been the case for two or three years in succession.
Whenever the report of the Pension Committee came in, we who wished to critise or amend it or to refer it back to the committee were told: Well, we are very willing to help you, and you are possibly right in what you say, but if you oppose this committee's report, no report at all will be brought in and the pensioners will not have the benefit of these provisions. Last session, in spite of this objection made by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), I insisted on pushing the matter and I desired to bring it to the vote. On asking the Chair to put the question to the vote, however, I was ruled out of order because, had the law been amended in the direction I proposed, it would have been necessary first to obtain a resolution of the House, as there was involved the question of voting larger sums from the exchequer. This has happened in two years. Now, I have no guarantee that it will not happen again. There is no guarantee that the Pension Committee's report will not be brought down in the dying days of the session and that the Government will not say again: Unless you accept this report and swallow it holus-bolus the pensioners will be deprived of the benefit thereof. And there is equally na guarantee that if I insist on bringing this amendment before the House it will not again be ruled out of order. As a matter of fact, it should be ruled out of order if the chairman of the committee did his duty properly, so that I should be absolutely without recourse. We have a proposition which has -been received by the House with enthusiasm for two, three and, four years, and every time we came to what I might call a show-down the matter was thrown out.


James Arthurs: Did the hon. member
ever bring that proposition to a vote in this House?


Charles Gavan Power: In order to explain more fully to the hon. gentleman, who has evidently not understood what I have been talking about for the last five minutes, I will tell him that last year I endeavored to bring the matter to a vote but that it was thrown out by the chairman on the ground that I was not in order in proposing that further moneys be voted from the Crown at the request of a private member without a resolution of the House.


James Arthurs: The hon. member was
a member of the committee whose actions he is complaining of, but he did not bring in a minority report.


Charles Gavan Power: I will answer that question too. For the last three years, on every occasion when the committee brought in a report, I have objected to the omission of any provision for the widowed mother. On every occasion when the matter has been brought before this House I have insisted on these provisions such as I have advocated to-night being placed in the bill. And if the hon. gentleman had the interest of the pensioners and their dependents so much at heart, as I am sure he should have- and as I am sure he would have but for the fact that probably he is under-


James Arthurs: You are not answering the question.


Charles Gavan Power: What is your question?


James Arthurs: Have you brought in
any minority report?


Charles Gavan Power: I did on one occasion
bring in a minority report, but I was all alone on this question, and not having had any satisfaction in introducing such a report, I proposed, with the consent and, I think, with the knowledge of all members of the committee to debate this matter on the floor of the House. And as a matter of fact I did debate it on the floor of the House. It is no new question and the hon. gentleman ought to know that. Speaking frankly, I am somewhat reluctant to agree to the request made by the Minister of Justice and my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). Another reason is that personally I am under the impression that the returned soldiers have no longer very much faith in this Pension Committee. I rather think that in the past few years they have been looking at the Pension Committee and the Committee on Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment as a means of thwarting what they consider to be their, legitimate desires. Last year we had somewhat of a tempest in a teapot but we saw at that time what the true feelings of the soldiers were with reference to the Pension Committee. I am willing to do my best for the returned soldiers at any time, but I will certainly not sit on the committee another year. I know that on several occasions during the proceedings of the committee last year, the soldier vote was defeated by an almost entirely civilian vote; and if that is to happen again-and it might very well happen on this very question-I do not see any necessity or any reason why the committee should sit another year. I have on every possible occasion placed my views

on this important matter before the committee and before the House, and I do not think I could serve any useful purpose by sitting on the committee another year. Nevertheless, I have to bear in mind that if this question were not referred to a committee at the present time my proposition might be defeated, and in all likelihood would result in a worse condition for the poor people whom I am endeavouring to benefit. I am strongly desirous of furthering the cause of the widowed mothers, and if it were left to my own feelings in the matter I would say, "Let us come to a show-down and see whether those who have been telling us so much about their interest in the returned soldiers and their dependents will prove their interest by their votes on the question when put to them in a fair and straightforward manner." However it seems to be the opinion of those who are better versed in parliamentary matters than I am, that more good may perhaps be obtained by referring this question again to a committee; that there may be a better chance of the committee this year seeing things in their true light than has been the case in the past three or four years. Therefore, at the request of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, for whose opinion I maintain the highest respect, I beg leave to withdraw the motion.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman have leave to withdraw the motion?
Motion withdrawn.
On motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 10.32 p.m.
Tuesday, March 8, 1921.